Stop the boats? Stop the propaganda!

Australia has moved from talking about stopping asylum seekers to stopping the boats, shamefully removing human lives from the equation altogether, writes David Hardaker.

There's something about the debate around asylum seekers that taps into the darkness in the souls of millions of Australians. There's a reflexive suspicion and bigotry which is being manipulated and forged into hatred by wordsmiths on the government payroll.

It's a practice of the black art of propaganda which is despicable and verges on the evil. It comes from those clever enough to know the power of language to manipulate and immoral enough to care little of the consequences.

The debate around asylum seekers has always been framed around the undeclared racism that infects so much of Australia. John Howard's line, "We will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come", worked powerfully on those who suspected filthy foreigners were trying to overtake good upstanding Australia. The concept of "border protection" cleverly excised not only parts of Australia but also any reference to humans. But now even these manipulations look positively benign.

The Rudd Government's announcement of the PNG solution for asylum seekers has taken the language offensive one step further. For some reason a government minister, Jason Clare, thinks it is acceptable to talk about placing "a bounty on the heads" of people smugglers. Its companion image is the bounty hunter, taking the law into their own hands. The word belongs in the same category as "vigilantes".

The authors of the phrasing will no doubt have a hundred ways to justify it. "Protecting Australia" will be among them. But those who play with words for a living know the dark side of their patriotic message. And that dark side is to let loose and dignify a spirit of vengeance that lurks in our midst. Should a good citizen turn up with a gun in one hand and a bloodhound in the other would any of us be surprised? It gives licence to the lynch mob and to the worst of our motivations.

The wordsmiths of the government have also cunningly reframed the debate to focus now on "people smugglers" who "are peddling in misery and death", a breed so criminal and repulsive that we are entitled to call them evil. The masterstroke is to now erase the idea of "asylum seekers" altogether. And as part of the pious marketing package we are asked to consider the asylum seekers now as victims, rather than viewing them as disease-ridden intruders as we were once (quietly) encouraged to do.

The propagandists are, unfortunately, borrowing from the playbook of the Nazis and those before (and after) them who have declared war on "the alien". Let us not disrespect or belittle the horrific tragedy that befell the Jews of Europe, but at the same time let us not ignore that those who committed those atrocities set forth a powerful template of how to manipulate mass opinion. Anyone who cares about compassion and fairness should be on alert.

It all starts, of course, with the objectification of a population. The technique of turning people into objects is propaganda 101. If we don't think we are dealing with people then horrible actions become that much easier to commit. When rounding up the Jews, their persecutors gave them labels which denied their human essence.

In one example in Italy, captors referred to the Jews as "pieces". See, that makes it easier. "Piece #178. Step forward." There are, of course, many other examples. In Australia, once we talked of stopping "asylum seekers". Somewhere along the line it became more effective to talk about stopping "the illegal boats." Where did the people go? And what mind subtly erased humans from the equation?

What goes on in the mind of an Australian government propagandist? What reward is there in using your mind to manipulate with words? Is power, itself, enough?

Whoever is the hand behind this manipulation-by-language should step forward and identify themselves because you are committing language crimes that degrade us.

Come to think of it, I'm tempted to offer a bounty on their heads myself.

David Hardaker is a Walkley award winning journalist and has a BA (Hons), specialising in Linguistics. View his full profile here.

Comments (289)

Malcolm:

22 Jul 2013 2:40:19pm

Well I do admire an article that infringes Godwin's Law from the start, but apart from that I think the author in his earnest naivety mises the point that discouraging people from being drowned is a better option than encouraging those well paid merchants of death who sell passages on these unseaworthy boats to continue their trade. I really would like to see one of these hearts on the sleeve emotion fests actually take a sympathetic look at those people waiting patiently in the refugee camps to be processed rather than getting all misty eyed about the people who jump the queue and risk their own and their children's lives because they have the money.

Joe Blow:

23 Jul 2013 8:54:30am

Oh, so the Foreign Minister is lying when he says that most are 'economic refugees' just looking for a better life. So in your view, seeking asylum from persecution when you are not actually being persecuted is a perfectly 'legal' use of the UN convention and the resources of the Australian taxpayer. Interesting.

Richard G:

23 Jul 2013 11:49:46am

Its interesting that almost all of the comments here reflect exactly the fear-filled and obsessive prejudice that David talks about in the article right in front of you all. AMAZING. As he says - "It all starts, of course, with the objectification of a population. The technique of turning people into objects is propaganda 101."

The entire reaction to this article rests on whether you regard asylum seekers as real people with children, brothers and sisters, and religious, social or political circumstances that force them to get away from their country - often of persecution.

And this comment tops the lot for political naivety - " Oh, so the Foreign Minister is lying when he says that ......" . All we can do is to laugh at that:- someone who actually still believes in this day and age, that politicians don't lie.

reaver:

Another Aussie:

Although it has been pointed out for years, the asylum seekers are really immigrants in disguise.

They have been taking advantage of the Labor Party's soft target one day, easy touch the next approach.

Once these illegal immigrants get here, they then work tirelessly to smuggle in their family who safely wait at home until they the word to 'go'. Yes, the family is safe and so is the money that will pay the people smugglers.

The asylum industry in Australia, including the lawyers, are about to miss out on easy money from the taxpayers via the ALP who have wasted billions of dollars.

But this isn't about realising the obvious, this is about realising their is an election due.

John:

23 Jul 2013 7:14:08am

Please stick to facts.

90% of these illegal entrants have not been found to be genuine. They have been allowed in on the "we cannot prove that you are dishonest" basis, not the "you have established your rightful claim" basis.

They are not asylum seekers. They have received asylum elsewhere and have abandoned it. They are no longer seeking it. They are forum shopping.

Breaching Australian borders without proper sanction is illegal. They are illegal entrants.

The borders are controlled, but only after they have been breached by illegal travellers.

20,000 illegal entrants in a year, which looked like happening through 2013, is an invasion.

Daisy May:

Aussie Sutra:

23 Jul 2013 9:33:02am

The only thing I really disagree with in your comment is the numbers. 15,000+ asylum seekers have arrived so far this year, but the trend has been alarming. Based on the trend, and prior to this arrangement with PNG, the trend would indicate a minimum of 30,000 arrivals this year, a probability of 40,000+ and more than 50,000 within the realms of possibility. Of course, PNG will not have to take anywhere near these numbers as many so-called "asylum seekers" will simply not get on a boat if they aren't getting to their goal of Australia.

Joe Blow:

23 Jul 2013 8:58:03am

Hilarious how lefties can make claims like this while even the Labor Party has come to realise (after a mere 10 years) that most 'asylum seekers' are economic refugees just looking for a better lifestyle. And you can quote Bob Carr on that.

I suppose some people just take a little longer to catch up with reality, eh?

reaver:

23 Jul 2013 11:34:01am

Of course 90% of them are "found" to be refugees, Oh dear. It could hardly be any other way given that the review tribunal has been stacked with people who are quite openly asylum seeker advocates, including lawyers who represent asylum seekers if their own tribunal finds against them. Given the make up of the review tribunal and the inversion of the burden of proof in asylum cases it's almost impossible for an asylum seeker who came as an Irregular Maritime Arrival not to get classified as a refugee.

Malcolm:

22 Jul 2013 7:39:50pm

Thank you for making my point very clear - I wasn't demonising asylum seekers. I have no prejudices whatsoever regarding asylum seekers, I was attacking hysterical policies from our local naifs like the Greens that encourage these people to be sent to sea in unseaworthy old fishing vessels because these well-intentioned but very silly people cannot see that to stop this money driven murder practised by the people smugglers requires a simple direct deterrent. If the refugees are genuine, and not just economic chancers, then let them join the people in the camps and await processing. If they are found to be genuine then I welcome them.

Mickey:

23 Jul 2013 12:44:01am

Exactly. The government doesn't allow media into detention centres ostensibly to protect the asylum seeker's privacy. Very conveniently this means that it is impossible for the Australian public to see the human story of what happens in detention centres. Let alone assess the merits of the government's policies.

But suddenly when it suits the government's political agenda. It is quite happy to post images of people in detention.

sean:

22 Jul 2013 6:14:13pm

Malcolm posts-->

"I really would like to see one of these hearts on the sleeve emotion fests actually take a sympathetic look at those people waiting patiently in the refugee camps to be processed rather than getting all misty eyed about the people who jump the queue"

- There's room for both Malcolm. And let's not keep up the lie that there's a queue being jumped. There is no queue. That's not my opinion - that's the opinion of the UN, Amnesty and many more of those organisations that actually work in this field.

I'm all for our government going to to refugee camps and selecting people to be brought to Australia for settlement - that doesn't mean I can't also care about people arriving by boat. I'd also be fine with them saying for every boat arrival we go to a camp and also take one from there - a one for one scheme so that your chances are just as good from a camp.

I'm not misty eyed and naive either - I just don't think these people are any threat to us and need to be brutalised as a lesson to the others. It's a non-issue, we aren't under some sort of assualt - that's just propaganda.

Nor do I think boat arrivals are the salt of the earth - I fully expect there are about as many selfish, freeloading, criminal, inconsiderate, hypocritical bastards among them as you'd find in the average group of Aussies. They are just people.

Not everyone who thinks we can and should treat boat arrivals better is an emotional mess - I'm a callous bastard, I just don't see any purpose, benefit or justice in the current approach. Again - they are no more of a threat to us than anyone else who comes here.

John:

22 Jul 2013 7:22:18pm

No, Sean.

There is not room for both. Every illegal economic migrants steals a place from someone in a refugee camp. Simply because they are wealthy enough and criminal enough to get here does not mean that there is room for them or that they should receive any consideration at all other than a plane seat home..

Yes, there is a queue. It is 13,750 people long, as has been stated by several Immigration Ministers and by both Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard. It is true that Tony Abbott spoke of increasing it to 20,000 and Kevin Rudd has talked of an increase without giving a figure, but there is very definitely a queue.

If your "one-for-one" scheme were tried it would simply multiply the problems, social, political and financial that we now find ourselves in.

sean:

22 Jul 2013 8:10:24pm

"Every illegal economic migrants steals a place from someone in a refugee camp"- no they don't because illegal economic migrants are not granted places under our refugee intake. First example of deliberate untruth for propaganda purposes.

"Simply because they are wealthy enough and criminal enough to get here does not mean that there is room for them"- wealth does not enter into a person's claim for asylum and it is not a crime to enter Australia for the purpose of seeking asylum. Second example of deliberate untruth for propaganda purposes.

"Yes, there is a queue. It is 13,750 people long"- That's our refugee intake number, not a queue as you well know. Third example of deliberate untruth for propaganda purposes.From the Parliamentary Library in Canberra - "...there is no orderly queue for asylum seekers to join. Only a very small proportion of asylum seekers are registered with the UNHCR and only one per cent of those recognised by the UNHCR as refugees who meet the resettlement criteria are subsequently resettled to another country"

"there is very definitely a queue."- prove it!! where is the queue, who runs it, how do they ensure that everyone who need asylum has access to it? And don't say the UNHCR has the queue because they are one of the groups who fervently deny any such concept.

"If your "one-for-one" scheme were tried it would simply multiply the problems, social, political and financial that we now find ourselves in."- Then we shouldn't do it. But to be fair, I didn't propose a "scheme" I simply said I have equal sympathy for those in camps as those on boats and have no issue with us taking equal numbers of both. Of course, I note you provide no rational to your statement, just the typical pretense that saying it makes it true.

John, your response to my post supports the author's point - telling deliberate untruths while fervently believing them and conveniently forgetting any facts that don't support your view is a hallmark of propaganda.

JohnP:

What do you call purposefully disregarding the concerns of others out of hand by attacking their motives, methods?

Had it ever occurred to you that people have legitimate concerns regarding asylum seekers?

I don't mean whether YOU think they are legitimate, I mean whether THEY feel they are legitimate.

YOU and others like you are not the arbiters of how concerned other people should be on any given subject, and trying to blame it on education, misinformation, lack of understanding, or lack of compassion is an absolute insult.

DON"T insult people simply because they do not agree with you.

It is simply OK for someone in this country to say "I don't like illegal immigrants coming to this country".

sean:

"What do you call purposefully disregarding the concerns of others out of hand by attacking their motives, methods?"

- I didn't do that. I refuted specific statements made by the original poster.

"Had it ever occurred to you that people have legitimate concerns regarding asylum seekers?"

- yes. I'm one of them, I just think we need to be telling the truth about this instead of labelling ALL boat arrivals as illegal, economic, queue jumpers, etc because that is simply untrue.

"DON"T insult people simply because they do not agree with you."

- No specific insult was intended. However the views being expressed seemed to me to be deliberate misrepresentations and generalisations and I felt the need to call them as such. Propaganda is not a particularly personal or vulgar expression - it is has specific meaning which I justified using by the rational I used. I think it was reasonable.

Aussie Sutra:

23 Jul 2013 9:39:44am

Actually, the refugee convention only asks that asylum be provided. These asylum seekers are actually being offered RESETTLEMENT, which is far far beyond the original intent of the convention. It is appalling that Australia has offered permanent resettlement to even ONE of asylum seeker. However that damage is now done. If the asylum seekers do not wish to live in PNG then they are not refugees at all and should be deemed not to be such and returned to the nation for which they are legal citizens.

Bob:

23 Jul 2013 10:02:31am

Of course they have riots. In the last one they took hostages of the carers and burnt the place down costing us $30 million dollars.Why? because they wanted to intimidate the government into accepting their demands.Are they fleeing persecution or are they fleeing a country that does not accept that sort of behaviour.

reaver:

23 Jul 2013 11:42:34am

They don't throw their children in the water, Mickey, they sink their boats with their own children still on them. They don't illegally enter Australia, they unlawfully enter Australia. (The difference under Australian law being that Illegal refers to criminal breaches of the law which can result in fines and/or jail time whereas Unlawful is a non-criminal breach of the law, in this case the breach of the Migration Amendment Act 1993)They don't cause riots, they actively participate in them, causing injuries to others as well as millions of dollars in damage.Every humanitarian visa given to someone who arrived unlawfully by illegal boat (note the legal distinction) is one that is not given to a refugee who has waited patiently for a visa.

John:

23 Jul 2013 7:29:38am

All that is quite deceptive, Sean.

1) Yes, they do steal places, if they enter as illegal migrants and then become accepted as refugees.2) Wealth does not come into account for migrants or refugees, but when it is used for criminal purposes to circumvent Australian law it does matter.3) Of course the 13,750 is our refugee intake, and I am gratified that you have confessed your error. And every person who enters illegally and then becomes a refugee is part of that 13,750. I do note, however, that this number is now regularly spoken of as being 20,000, although I am not aware that it has been formally adopted. I hope it has.4) Ask UNHCR or any of the local representatives, such as Richard Towle because, despite your contention, they do know of these people. They will tell you of the many, many thousands of people in camps all over the world who are forlornly hoping that their applications to enter Australia might be met. As I write there are about 100,000 in Malaysian camps. And Malaysia is just a little bit closer to Australia than Iran or Afghanistan.

Your post is utterly typical of those who pursue this argument - full of emotive claims not backed by facts, propaganda instead of reasoned argument and a disregard amounting to insult of any contrary argument.

Keep calling other people names if it makes you feel better but, as other people have pointed out, that is the hallmark of the propagandist.

Tag:

23 Jul 2013 1:41:54am

Update - It is Labor who increased the intake to 20,000 with a foreseen further increase of another 7,000.Abbott's only stated policy is - yes you guessed it "to stop the boats".There is no list with a formal queue, just a process to go through of checks, it seems to be in disarray.

Daisy May:

Abbott agreed to the increase of humanitarian places as recommended by the Houston Report by the Expert Panel.......from 13,500 to 20,000.. he has since reneged on that commitment.

Rudd has said that he would like to see an increase to 27,000.

Where does Abbott stand.....he has refused to support any option put up by the Labor government to control the flow of asylum seekers arriving by boat, over the past 4 years.

Abbott has a three word slogan that is the centrepiece of his election campaign... He cannot afford to have the boats stop. He will put up every possible roadblock to NOT 'stop the boats' until after the election.

Applaudanum:

23 Jul 2013 8:44:37am

"I'd also be fine with them saying for every boat arrival we go to a camp and also take one from there - a one for one scheme so that your chances are just as good from a camp."

But the chances wouldn't be equal under the above 'one for one' suggestion because 100% (or thereabouts) of boaters get in vs a small % of campers. You would then be encouraging campers to become boaters in order to guarantee entry to Australia.

To be truly fair, I'd suggest that all boaters get sent to a camp with equivalent status as the oversees UN camps to get processed in the 'non-existent queue' (let's call it a 'lottery') in the same standind as everybody else. We can even fund the camps to an agreed amount so as to recognise the pull factor Australia carries.

John Coochey :

ThatFlemingGent:

22 Jul 2013 6:44:43pm

"Well I do admire an article that infringes Godwin's Law from the start, "

This doesn't invoke Godwin's Law at all - actually learn what it is before shooting your mouth off about a term you know nothing about (I can check with the man himself so don't try and be a rules-lawyer)

This is one of the few occasions in recent memory where the comparison and parallels with Goebbels' methods is apt - and judging by the sheer amount of easily disproven rot (like the fallacious "queue") that is being peddled like it was fact it's been effective.

Malcolm:

22 Jul 2013 8:00:50pm

And so your argument is that we discuss Godwin's Law rather than criminals who put people to sea in clapped out fishing boats for lots of money. BTW I think your attempt at derailing the argument is rather specious.

Greig:

22 Jul 2013 8:53:45pm

You have that back to front. The lie is that there is no queue. And that lie has been repeated loud enough and often enough that people believe it without question. Of course there is a queue, there are people waiting in camps all over the world who are waiting to be processed for entry into Australia. Certainly it is not an orderly queue (the boat people make sure of that). But there is a queue, and the boat people are jumping it.

John Sandercock:

23 Jul 2013 7:19:36am

"The lie is that there is no queue"So UNCHR and every other organisation helping refugees is lying?Meanwhile you, of course, know the truth with absolutely no first or secondhand experience?It must be wonderful to be so omniscience.

Greig:

23 Jul 2013 7:37:01am

John, it is part of the lie that the UNHCR says there is no queue. There are camps all over the world with people applying for asylum and migration to Australia. Fact. Australia has a limited quota. Fact. Therefore there is a queue, and those who arrive by boat are jumping the queue. Fact.

Sure, there is no queue in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan that are not signatories to the 1951 Refugee Convention. But that does not mean there is no queue.

Desmond22:

22 Jul 2013 9:04:44pm

Malcolm, and all the other people who have used the "people in refugee camps" to justify the appalling Australian government responses to asylum seekers since 1994 (Keating's unlimited mandatory detention), 1996 (Howard's linking and capping Australia's offshore and onshore humanitarian intake), and ever downward since, I say to you that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

John Howard's government deliberately conflated two programs of different nature and purpose and international legal standing purely to create a false dichotomy, an artificial and otherwise purposeless competition between the planned offshore, and signed-UN-Convention-mandated onshore, programs. See theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/boats-sinking-our-refugee-program/story-e6frgd0x-1226431207815 The phrase ?queue-jumpers? was then introduced to super-charge the demonisation of human beings. All that is needed to meet your obviously sincere and desperate concern for people in refugee camps being disadvantaged by this conflation is to separate the programs.

Further: There was no orderly queue for the people groups who sought asylum. See phaa.net.au/documents/int_health_asylum_seekers.pdf

The vast majority of people who arrived as offshore refugees, who have lived in refugee camps, that I have worked and spoken in depth with, would be appalled and offended at your use of their name and experiences to demonise another group of vulnerable people. I have consistently been impressed by the relatively higher rate of empathy and compassion for other human beings, even mean racist privileged white people, shown by people from refugee backgrounds. This is typified by the ?Palestinians in south Lebanon refugee camps [who] have opened their tents to [] Syrian families? abc.net.au/news/2013-07-18/wakim---a-global-perspective-on-refugees/4828412. Perhaps you could choose to learn from their example and grow a heart rather than use their experiences to further your own flawed prejudicial arguments.

The so-called "flood" of people who arrived in Australian waters last year seeking asylum was about 1/6 of the capacity of the MCG, just 3% of the world's asylum seekers, less than 3% of Australia?s annual immigration, and less than 0.5% of annual visitors to Australia (3.7 million). For more info you might like to visit: refugeecouncil.org.au; guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2013/jul/02/australia-asylum-seekers; news.com.au/world-news/ten-myths-around-asylum-seekers-arriving-on-boats-in-australian-waters/story-fndir2ev-1226676024840; and amnesty.org.au

By the way Malcolm, I was dux of my school, top 0.5% in my state academically, have a degree in mathematics and a Masters degree. I?ve worked with refugees in Australia and overseas for 25 years as a volunteer, and also as a professional for 19 of those years. I have won high level non-monetary awards for both

Joe Blow:

23 Jul 2013 9:08:36am

For someone as intelligent as you, with a maths degree and everything, it is interesting that basic maths seems to elude you. Given that more than 30000 asylum seekers arrived by boat last year and the MCG holds about 100,000 - your statement that "people who arrived in Australian waters last year seeking asylum was about 1/6 of the capacity of the MCG" is wrong by a factor of .... about 100%!!

Malcolm:

23 Jul 2013 11:17:48am

"By the way Malcolm, I was dux of my school, top 0.5% in my state academically, have a degree in mathematics and a Masters degree. I?ve worked with refugees in Australia and overseas for 25 years as a volunteer, and also as a professional for 19 of those years. I have won high level non-monetary awards for both"

Impressive quals (BTW mine are better) but they don't seem to equip you to understand that I am not opposed to refugees being given asylum but only to the dangerous traffic of them in clapped out old fishing boats by smugglers who are making a fortune from the trade in human misery. When you comprehend that you will then understand why abusing people for pointing out the truth is no substitute for understanding the problem.

rufus t firefly:

23 Jul 2013 9:01:19am

But Malcom, 'Godwin's law', not what it's referring to, is the cop-out position, one designed to avoid any need to engage in serious discussion of, practically, anything (mention Godwin, dismiss and move on. Really? If there's an argument to be made, why not refute rather than dismiss?). Godwin's law is it's own fallacy.

Dove:

22 Jul 2013 2:48:04pm

TV can convince most people of most things. Invade Iraq? Sure. We are under attack from muslims? Why not? We are drowning under an armada of boats. Of course. People have been convinced through a political process that feeds off deep fears and a media that sells off it. Had someone convinced Australians that refugees were a good thing, Rudd would be promising to triple the numbers. They didn't, they aren't, so he promises to send them to PNG- a country hardly the better for our stewardship. We will pay for it anyway, that's for sure. I suspect PNG will as well, along with the people on the boats.

KK:

22 Jul 2013 5:21:41pm

How can people forced to leave their country be a good thing? How can criminals profiteering from others' desperation be a good thing? How can billions of dollars wasted be a good thing? Tell me one good thing about boat arrivals as opposed to an orderly refugee program.

OntheRun:

Australia permanently resettles 20,000 refugees per year. This is a far greater number than most countries and one of the highest per capita in the world. New Zealand only accepts 750.

Why not praise Australia's kindness. For people who believe all arrivals are refugees, they must surely believe the arrivals left for a reason related to persecution and could not find safety anywhere in-between. Where is the moral outrage and Indonesia and every other country between Australia and where the individuals left?

Humanrights:

The 27 Member States of the European Union registered 296,700 new asylum claims in 2012. Australia by contrast registered a total of 15,800 applications of asylum seekers in 2012.

Those figures are from the UN?. You want to argue with them? This is precisely the point of David?s article; people are blinded, deliberately, by both sides of politics. Don?t listen to the propaganda being fed to you. Do some basic research. Ask questions. Find out.

el-viejo:

23 Jul 2013 10:28:17am

Approximately 80,000 refugees worldwide are resettled every year. 90% go to the USA, Canada and Australia, 8% to the European Union, 2% to other countries.

There are 12 European countries resettling refugees - collectively, approx. 5,000 a year. The European Union agreed on a common resettlement policy only in March 2012, after three years of discussion. That agreement has not materially influenced the European intake, of 5,000 refugees a year for all member states of the European Union combined.http://www.unhcr.org/4f7589ef9.html

The current annual refugee resetlement quota for the United Kingdom is 750.http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/asylum/gateway/750:62,740,000 = 0.0000119 refugee per capita (1.19 refugees per 100,000 population)

That's 75.3 times more per capita than the UK. All of those resettled become eligible for naturalisation as Australian citizens after four years of stay.

The oft quoted 300,000 or so asylum seekers in the UK have the effective legal status of temporary entrants on readily revocable TPVs. Their chance of ever becoming permanent residents of the UK or being naturalised as UK citizens is, in round figures, zero.

The same goes for the hundreds of thousands of asylum seekers in Germany, France, Italy, Greece and Turkey.

Conclusion: The vast majority of the world's refugees will never be permanently resettled in any country. We are doing more than most.

Aussie Sutra:

23 Jul 2013 9:47:35am

If people were ONLY getting asylum and not being RESETTLED in Australia we would not have the numbers arriving that we do actually. Australia FOOLISHLY gives permanent residency to those claiming refugee status instead of giving them asylum and then sending them back when asylum is no longer needed. You need to learn the difference between "asylum" and "resettlement". Australia currently resettles more refugees per capita than any other nation in the world. We resettle the third highest number in total, and we resettle more than all of Europe combined.

reaver:

23 Jul 2013 11:52:49am

You clearly don't understand the situation in Europe, Humanrights. None of the countries that asylum seekers use to enter Europe, such as Italy and Greece, resettle refugees and once an asylum seeker has entered Europe via these countries they are ineligible under the Dublin regulation to claim asylum in the countries that do resettle, such as the UK. If they enter these countries and claim asylum they are sent back to the first EU country they arrived in. This means that even though there were almost 300,000 applications for asylum almost none of them resulted in the resettlement of the applicants.

Humanrights:

23 Jul 2013 1:22:49am

I think you need to check your facts and figures.Of the 10.4 million refugees under UNHCR?s mandate as of 2011, the largest numbers were being hosted by Pakistan (1,702,700), Iran (886,468), Syria (755,445), Germany (571,685), Kenya (566,487) and Jordan (451,009). These six major refugee-hosting countries accounted for nearly half (47 per cent) of people deemed refugees by UNHCR. They were followed by Chad (366,494), China (301,018), Ethiopia (288,844), United States (264,763), Bangladesh (229,669) and Yemen (214,740). Australia was ranked 47th, hosting just 0.2 per cent of the global total. Taking into account relative population size, Australia?s rank drops to 71st. Compared to our national wealth, Australia ranked 89th in the world hosting just 0.6 refugees per 1 usD.

Still reckon we deserve praise for our kindness?

And the reason they could not find safety anywhere "in between" is because we are the nearest country to be a signatory to the UN Refugee Convention. Indonesia isn't. They have no protection there. The number of people arriving by boat to be found to be genuine refugees is consistently found to be about 90% of all arrivals. Compare that to the tens of thousands of genuine illegal immigrants here who arrive by plane and simply stay by over staying once their visa has run out.

Aussie Sutra:

John:

23 Jul 2013 7:44:58am

Again, you parrot this nonsense about Australia being a signatory to the UNHCR Convention.

I am quite certain that you have read before, but for your continuing information I will repeat, that there is NO, repeat NO necessity for a country to be a signatory to the Convention for it to be a place of asylum and safe haven.

It is specifically set out in the Convention that any country that does not have a policy of automatic refoulement is a country of safe haven.

Please try reading the Convention.

And if a signatory nation is the desired destination, why do Afghans travel half way around the globe, transit through five or six countries to end up in Australia when there are four signatory nations right on the borders of Afghanistan?

All your arguments about the relative generosity of Australia are simply specious. Those claims relate to genuine refugees, not illegal entrants, and I agree that Australia should be as generous as it can. But we should not be generous to criminals by "putting sugar on the table" and thereby punish those in genuine need.

Alpo:

23 Jul 2013 11:51:22am

Poor little John, when he runs out of arguments his level of nonsense increases exponentially. John, read this and learn ONCE ANF FOR ALL: Once you are a signatory of the convention you are a signatory of the convention. Your argument that there is no need of being a signatory is totally nonsensical. Do you get it now?Not all countries are SAFE heavens, whether they are signatory or not to the convention. Do you understand what the word SAFE mean? You do not go to unsafe places running away from unsafety. How difficult is that to understand John?For the nth time, seeking refuge is not illegal in Australia and those who seek refuge are therefore not criminals. Stop your mindless and ignorant scaremongering once and for all!

el-viejo:

23 Jul 2013 10:34:25am

Humanrights: Just one question. When will the 1,702,700 refugees in Pakistan be given legal status of permanent residents of Pakistan, with an option to become naturalised citizens of Pakistan in due course?

In the meantime, I presume the 1,702,700 refugees in Pakistan are enjoying unrestricted access to work, health services, education and welfare programs, courtesy of the Pakistani taxpayer? There is hosting and there is hosting...

mack:

"And the reason they could not find safety anywhere "in between" is because we are the nearest country to be a signatory to the UN Refugee Convention. "

That is simply untrue. Google a map of African and Middle Eastern signatories to the convention for goodness sake.

Asylum seekers from the Middle East are within a bus ride of a dozen signatory countries.

The fact they come here, half way around the world, is driven by the reality that the nearer signatory countries are mainly from the Third World (no Centrelink, etc), the resettlement conditions are harsher than those applying in Australia, and that the fact that the Refugee Convention is broken. For example, Turkey does not resettle refugees from the Middle East.

Green Day:

22 Jul 2013 2:49:24pm

Are we degrading PNG by classifying them as third world and them not being good enough to accept asylum seekers? Or are the asylum seekers forcing their way into Australia rather than taking up PNG's offer with open arms?

Aussie Sutra:

23 Jul 2013 9:53:42am

Any genuine refugee will be absolutely delighted to be offered complete resettlement in another nation. The offer is far too kind if you ask me. Asylum until it is safe to return home is all that is really required for GENUINE refugees. The racists in this story are the ones who appear to think of Papua New Guineans as sub-human.

Bronwyn:

22 Jul 2013 2:49:58pm

As a private citizen, I am glad that Australia takes in up to 20,000 people a year and I don't care where refugees come from, although it would be nice to get people out of camps where they have been stuck for years. I just don't want anyone else to drown. I don't think I will ever forget the footage of the people drowning off Christmas Island.

People smugglers in my opinion are evil, as they place people who have paid for a service onto unsea-worthy ships, with inadequate food, water, lifevests and fuel. They place the lives of the people in their care in callous disregard.

Paul Pott:

22 Jul 2013 8:11:46pm

They are travel agents. We all believe in a free market don't we? They are only fulfilling a need, just as any travel agent is. it is government regulation, in this case immigration controls, that gets in the way of business.

mack:

reaver:

23 Jul 2013 11:58:14am

They are not travel agents, Paul, they are criminals. People smuggling is recognised as a crime both under Australian law and International law. If people smugglers are nothing more than unregulated travel agents then the vile degenerates who produce child pornography are nothing more than unregulated movie makers.

OntheRun:

Why not call them criminal associates. People smugglers are criminals aren't they? And there was interaction and business activities made with them?

Then how about charges for bribery as I understand it is against the law in both Indonesia and Australia to bribe an official.

The act of these people getting to Australia harms our neighbour Indonesia. Australia should be a good neighbour and turn as many boats back as possible when they enter Australian (not international, never meet them there) waters. If a few boats sink when turned around, show the message in Indonesia and call on the Indonesian government to save their own boats with their own citizens.

If the officials kick up a fuss, so be it. It is best to stop this corruption in Indonesia in the long run.

Tory Boy:

Act Rationally:

22 Jul 2013 5:41:27pm

You know it won't happen TB. They are all over the internet now justifying the policy through gritted teeth. Whereas last week you were a 'racist' if you brought this up, this week you are genuinely concerned about stopping drownings.

I love it how its still apparently JWH and TA's fault though. Like they 'forced' Labor to adopt policy unheard of in its comprehensiveness in Australia before.

I'm actually wondering just what Rudd could promise this election and still hold on to the rusted-on's? At this stage he could probably promise WorkChoices style policies and keep the followers!!

Jungle Boy:

Alpo:

23 Jul 2013 11:55:44am

John, for the nth time: it is legal to appear at the border of a country and ask for asylum. There is nothing illegal about that in a country signatory of the convention. End of the story. Stop your ignorant ranting.What is illegal is to enter a country with a visa and overstaying. That's illegal!

ThatFlemingGent:

22 Jul 2013 7:08:44pm

Ha, how soon you forget - or seek to deliberately mislead.

It's been the Opposition and Abbott that has been the most fervent in dehumanising asylum seekers and casting them as "the other" - that they're illegal (they aren't), that they are getting an unfair advantage as "queue jumpers" and "welfare recipients" (they aren't) that they are "country shopping" (the least of their concerns) and thus not "legitimate" - not to mention the underlying sectarianism and racism (many being deliberately led to believe that it's a "Muslim invasion" - hang your heads, Morrison and Bolt in particular)

The only major party with even half a sense of humanity and realism in this regard (ALP having lost theirs, the Tories never having had one) that isn't pandering to the base racism of far too many low-information Australians - is the Greens; now look how much they've been pilloried for actually standing on a principle!

Perhaps we should be swearing in Prime Minister Christine Milne then Tory Boy, if we follow your argument to it's logical conclusion.

Billy Bob Hall:

Malcolm:

22 Jul 2013 7:44:14pm

TB, I'll give you a little reality check.

Abbott's policy of turning back the boats cannot work. Just think about it - the moment a boat is intercepted by the Navy only a couple of people with life jackets have to leap overboard and we are duty bound to rescue both them and the rest and take them to Christmas Island. Even the Navy admits that. So all your beloved Tony Abbott's policy will result in is more not less boat people. You really don't have a clue do you and neither does Tony.

Jungle Boy:

mark:

22 Jul 2013 2:55:19pm

I'm sorry, but this kind of response from government was a long time coming.The media has contributed to the issue by allowing Abbott to go on for three years now about stopping the boats. They sat idly by or fed the flames of fear in order to sell newspapers or screen time. The non-questioning of his non-policy about how he intended to do this was never addressed. Abbott scored so many cheap political points that he was able to lead public opinion on the matter... and all along the way I don't recall hearing a peep out of David Hardaker or a significant number of his peers.Now his outrage seems so confected... as if in an attempt to sell more newspapers and screen time.Is it any wonder that the public trust journos even less than politicians?

OntheRun:

22 Jul 2013 5:40:46pm

I thought is was a long time coming as criminals in INdonesia where receiving close to $10,000 per person and corruption fuels violence.

I though it was a long time coming due to our sexist preferential treatment. And the elitist treatment (who has $10,000 for criminals) both during the journey and after (UN camps receive far less per person)And the deaths (no human rights supporters seem to mention the drowning)Then there was the rioting when the people claiming to be refugees are safe with food and shelter which is more than can be said for the Australian homeless.

When a system is unjust, it needs to change. The change was a long time coming.

mark:

23 Jul 2013 9:53:35am

I can't see the relevance of your comment in relation to the original article, or my comment on David's comment.The whole point of the comment is based around the rhetoric or propaganda of our politicians, and the commentary provided in the media which works with or against that propaganda.Whether you support the policy or not (and the reasons for that) is not the point.I agree with David in that the heated debate and the loaded rhetoric has led us to the current policy position... but rather than look exclusively at the politicians, David might spend some time looking at the part the media has played.and you (OntheRun) might like to reflect why you support the policy.. is it based on fact, or what you have been told by politicians and the media?

PTom:

22 Jul 2013 2:57:21pm

Using propaganda to stop propaganda.

What about the lack of talking about humans suffering in refugee camps while we allow those with cash safely in. Yep all this moral outage at words of "stopping the boats", ignores humans affected by humans on boats.

bilbo2:

22 Jul 2013 7:03:25pm

There is also demonisation as Xenophobes those who seek an end to self selection for permanent settlement in Australia via people smuggler and lawyer. Australia receives better value for money by orderly selection of refugees from overseas refugee camps however they until now were being forced to accept rorters who will in many cases be dependant on welfare benefits for life.

JoeBloggs:

22 Jul 2013 2:58:25pm

A picture is worth a thousand words as this article clearly proves.

The picture in the article is of a asylum seeker upset that they will not be settled in the 10th richest nation (Australia) and instead will get to live in safety without fear of persecution in the 138th richest nation (PNG).

No one is about to kill them anymore, no one seeks to persecute them anymore, they have escaped and can now look forward to a life where they do not fear their own government.

and yet..... tears.

One could almost read their mind "sh*t, i spent all that money trying to slip into Australia via the back door and live the good life in the lucky country, and it didn't work!"

Is that the reaction of a person fleeing persecution? is that the reaction of someone in fear of their lives?

Sarah:

22 Jul 2013 6:17:21pm

Have you ever fled persecution, Joe? How would you know what it looks like?

A lot of knowledgeable people are actually very concerned that these people will face persecution in PNG. Maybe not from the government, but from a populace that puts a lot of emphasis on ancestral claims to land on a very small island. If you are so concerned about asylum seekers sneaking into the "lucky country", imagine how people in a not-so-lucky country will feel.

Fobbing our humanitarian reponsibilities off on a much poorer neighbour. What a disgusting policy.

whogoesthere:

22 Jul 2013 11:06:45pm

The aim of the policy is not to send people to PNG. The whole thing is designed to remove the incentive to get on a boat. That is the key, that the refugees don't want to go to PNG, so the boat trade will stop.

If it works it means no-one will drown, and refugees waiting in camps with no hope of ever getting on a boat will have a better chance. We will still take just as many refugees as we do now.

JoeBloggs:

23 Jul 2013 9:13:25am

Sarah are you suggesting the entire population of PNG are racists?

I suspect that the asylum seekers could, if they wished, win over the population of PNG by demonstrating their desire to work hard for the betterment of all people in PNG. That would certainly ingratiate themselves to the local population.

I'm certain the asylum seekers will be more than willing to work hard in their new country where they are safe from government persecution and no longer fear for their lives.

ps. our humanitarian responsibilities have not changed in the slightest. Our refugee intake has increased, the only difference being is that these refugees will come from proper refugee camps not people smugglers.

Ann:

22 Jul 2013 6:20:31pm

If JoeBloggs were suddenly pursued by a lynch mob he would, of course, happily settle in PNG instead of trying to get to the USA or UK, even if there was no job or prospects for him in PNG! He is just that kind of understanding guy who takes global concerns into account when his future is on the line.

reaver:

23 Jul 2013 12:08:34pm

Ann, if JoeBloggs were suddenly pursued by a lynch mob he would, of course, happily settle wherever people weren't trying to kill him. Refugees don't have a right to choose the country in which they are to be resettled. They've never had such a right. They don't get to say "I don't like it in country X. The living standard, the job prospects and the weather aren't up to my standards. I'm holding out for country Y."

Tristan:

22 Jul 2013 6:22:32pm

Maybe the asylum seeker is weeping because she cannot reunite with family already in Australia.

The ALP's and LNP's commitment to skilled migration at the expense of family reunion, and use of bridging visas and temporary visas mean that refugees cannot legititimately sponsor their relatives from overseas.

That's probably why we see more family groups taking the perilous voyage together.

Jungle Boy:

KW:

22 Jul 2013 9:55:07pm

http://www.smartraveller.gov.au/zw-cgi/view/Advice/Papua_New_Guinea

No, instead they get to fear gang rapes, lynch mobs, religious/racial persecution and violent crime. When you're talking about personal safety, freedom from persecution and escape from fear, you might want to plan your next trip to PNG more carefully.

The reason for sending people to PNG is to serve as a deterrent and to deflect the problem to our neighbours in the north. Making it so unthinkable to come here by boat that desperate refugees will have no choice but to migrate orderly through UN camps. This is bad for the people smuggling business, but it is just as bad for the people getting shipped off to PNG where - and make no illusion for yourself - they will not be safe.

You could see this as ripping off the band-aid to change the status quo. Great if it works. The boats will stop, the drownings will stop and the death merchants are put out of business. Costs for the refugee camps and the burden on welfare is reduced. But the price is our dignity. Please treat it with more solemnity, rather than just flippantly waving off the suffering of people who have already been through enough, regardless of their intentions or their previous situation.

It's much easier to waive the guilt when it's the asylum seekers/boat people that are to blame.

Jungle Boy:

PJ:

22 Jul 2013 2:58:32pm

It's a shame that instead of undertaking the sensible and logical action of research, getting-to-know-before concluding to an opinion about the issue, we are ignorantly absorbing the crap being drudged out of the fear-mongers and propagandists ever encompassing behind. We need to carefully raise a socially collective attitude of slight cynicism because despite running the risk of the bigotry that cynicism may give rise to, at least it is better than accepting the absolute trite that happens to pervade the very fabric of our communities. The shows like ACA, Today Tonight and shock jocks, Kevin Rudd's PNG deal and Tony Abbott...Tony Abbott...there's no more words for it. We've come to a point of creating our own monsters and we demand equality, morality and ethical justice for all while we become more greedy, bigoted, anxious, agitated and hostile. Now we must choose between the dotard and Frankenstein's monster, all our own creations. Well done people.

OntheRun:

22 Jul 2013 5:34:37pm

The only monster I can see is the like of David and Sarah Young-Hanson. Someone who is willing to a policy that favours males and the rich. Someone who is unable to recognise the death their policies cause. Someone who is unwilling to admit the influences of corruption that each asylum seeker is causing and someone who is willing to use disgusting language to attack others.

I am not a linguist but if I was to summarise both of them it would be with one word. Hypocrit

mgx:

22 Jul 2013 2:58:54pm

Troubling times for sure, but those in the Government who are not hypocrites, who are not scared to speak their mind, who have championed the rights of the oppressed will not, could not, abandon us. Those who have pointed out the hypocricy of others, albeit at times with with smug superiority, will fearlessly speak out in defence of those most vulnerable of people who have committed no crime. Come in Doug. Doug Cameron, are you there? Doug where are you? Say it isn't true, Doug.

Greyarea:

22 Jul 2013 5:55:28pm

It is hard to see that 'turning back the boats' is no rejecting refugees who seek to enter Australia.

I do not see, however, why we do not welcome those who arrive, on condition that they move to areas (eg the Riverina) where more unskilled workers are required. They are few in number and we can easily accommodate them. The expense is the madness of off shore accommodation. Instead, we can gain economic benefit.

John:

23 Jul 2013 8:01:19am

The "70% or so of asylum seekers" you quote (and what happened to the 90% figure so beloved of the apologists?) is simply a fudging of the facts. In fact only about 40% of those sent to Nauru were finally accepted into Australia.

The 90%, (or 70%) were NEVER found to be genuine. Because they destroyed all documentation, lied to the authorities about identity and place of origin and obstructed and refused to co-operate with Immigration officials it was near to impossible to properly assess the claims. They were allowed in on the basis that Australia could not prove the position rather then them proving that they were genuine.

Total silence might be your right, but it won't help you when you are facing a Judge and jury.

Alpo:

23 Jul 2013 12:05:40pm

John, more ignorant rants from you, as expected. A person reaching our border on a boat and claiming refugee status cannot be deemed a refugee or not a priori, on the spot. The case must be assessed once he/she is in custody.... Do you get it know or is this far too complex for your sclerotic mind?Between the years 1976 and 1982 not less than than 2000 Vietnamese boat people actually arrived in Australia and were accepted. Inform yourself before writing and stop embarrassing your already pretty shattered little "reputation".

Jungle Boy:

23 Jul 2013 12:15:27pm

The Vietnamese never came by boat?

Perhaps you are too young to rememember all the hysteria about boat-people in the 1970s? Like the current hysteria, it was stirred up by racists. And like the current hysteria, it will prove foundless. The Vietnamese have added to Australia's richness.

Alpo:

Mark James:

22 Jul 2013 6:15:03pm

ahld, elections are usually decided on more than one issue.

People might well despair at Labor's position on asylum seekers, but they might also consider that an incoming Coalition government will hope to bring back WorkChoices, will do nothing to reduce our carbon emissions in the long-term, will gift our resources wealth to overseas investors, will consider national infrastructure to be the plaything of the private sector, will offer the NBN only to the rich, and will act to better on refugees while continuing to toxify the issue for political gain as they have been doing for the past 12 years.

A happy little debunker:

22 Jul 2013 9:13:11pm

Since broader policys are of concern (outside of mungo's perspective)

We should well be aware of these concerns.

'Workchoices' is a union chestnut that just never gets old, but don't let the stated LNP IR policy or their promise get in your way. Or the fact that the principal objector within Cabinet now leads that party. But you don't have to believe them after all the lies LABOR have told.

Reducing Carbon emmisions only makes sense if there is catastrophic climate change, a viewpoint that many scientists and thinkers are away from. Far from being the greatest moral challenge El-supremo decided it would be the great Morale challenge for the voting stocks.

Gifting our resources to overseas investors? You mena allowing states to rightfully claim ownership of the minerals and resources they control. But then, after the Super profits tax that generated no revenue, I can see why you'd be sceptical - of LABOR.

National infrastructure a plaything of the private sector, much better a plaything of a LABOR party that promised, twice, the commencement of works in western sydney that have not started!

Will offer the NBN only to the rich, rather than having the NBN subsidised by taxing the poor! Oh, thats right it was meant to be revenue neutral, so hows that revenue going?

For Rudd the deaths at sea are a better option because he is less accountable, in his thinking, for the thousand deaths than the 4 pink batt deaths!

Peter:

22 Jul 2013 3:06:53pm

"We will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come."Every country has a policy on admission of people to become residents. So every country decides who will be admitted. And the circumstances in which they come? Why should there not be a rigorous assessment of applicants, including how they arrived - e.g., did they arrive in Indonesia with identification papers and then arrive in Australia without? Please explain your problem with this - or do you think Australia should have an anything goes attitude and NOT decide who to admit as an immigrant? Otherwise you have rules, and you decide "who comes to this country".

Ann:

22 Jul 2013 6:22:21pm

The point is not that the rule exists - the point is that the issue, which is nationally a non-issue with all the other issues there are to consider, has become a huge political sticking point, and language is used to flame emotions so that it stays in the public's mind, instead of being dismissed. Case in point - are not the amateur hunters killing native wildlife in our parks like fools not also a national problem? Yet no-one gives more than a few moments of airspace to the issue.

Unheard:

22 Jul 2013 7:09:46pm

In the absence of papers we give them a number, how does that dehumanise them? They are just numbers 0- 45000! Rudds policy killed the dead ones and numbered the survivors! So what? Rudd will fix it! He's good at moral challenges!

Humanrights:

23 Jul 2013 1:50:46am

This goes to the very heart of David?s article; the need to select words very carefully. We are not talking about admission of residents, we are talking about asylum seekers. People seeking residency are immigrants, by definition those who come from choice and with free will. Asylum seekers are those who are forced to flee their own country due to persecution and are seeking refuge, not residency.

Because we are signatory to the United Nations Refugee Convention we have in effect signed away that right to decide who will come and under what circumstances. As signatories we are obliged by International Law to accept people seeking asylum however they arrive, by boat or by plane. Howard very nastily manipulated the intent of the UN convention with the quote you opened with and his doing so is yet another example of what David?s article is trying to explain.

Assessing people to ensure their application for asylum is genuine is part of the process but whether they arrived with or without papers is irrelevant under law to that process. People seeking asylum are often quite genuinely unable to have access to passports or visas and to be without them in no way makes their entry illegal. Seeking asylum is NOT illegal.

As for your final question, again you muddle up the difference between an immigrant and an asylum seeker. The two words are not interchangeable and our responsibilities and obligations to the two groups are quite different.

A rigorous assessment of asylum seekers for purposes of granting refugee protection is of course essential and I have no problem with that. Indeed over the last 5 years approximately 90% of all asylum seekers arriving by boat have been found to be genuine refugees in need of protection after their claims have been investigated.

By signing on to the UN Refugee Convention we did decide who would come to this country: people in need of protection who had been forced to flee their homelands due to persecution.

Jungle Boy:

Herb:

22 Jul 2013 3:08:00pm

I put my hand up David and say you are out of step with the rest behind me. We live and see the result of this influx which hasn't resulted in integration only immigration and we are sick of your minorities opinion and influence.

whogoesthere:

All our refugee places are being taken up by people who come by boat. So what about people who wait in camps for years and years, with no hope of getting on a boat ?.

Of course some would say take no refugees, but that's not on the agenda. How refugee advocates can support a system that encourages people to spend all their money, and risk their lives is beyond me. How they can ignore the thousands patiently waiting is beyond me as well. Just lets them take the moral high ground I think.

My hairdresser came from a camp in Africa, she hopes the boats are stopped. I suppose she's a budding Nazi as well.

So for all the hysterics, we are still taking refugees. If people think we should take more fine, but that's an entirely different subject.

Flyingfox:

JMJ:

22 Jul 2013 3:22:38pm

David, the law is quite specific in relation to human trafficking & people smuggling offences for it is set down in Division 270 and 271 of the Commonwealth Criminal Code Act 1995. The problem with Rudd's compact with PNG is that the human rights of asylum seekers seeking refugee status in this country has been tossed out of the window. Under these conditions I could not vote for either major party & will now give my 'protest vote' to the Greens & for all those decent people who believe in a more compassionate society I suggest they do the same.

Terry2:

22 Jul 2013 3:24:31pm

What a strange article and an example of how, by using facts selectively, you can completely distort the subject.

We have recently increased our intake of refugees from 13,000 to 20,000 per annum with the prospect of increasing this to 27,000. We have, as you say, placed a 'bounty' of $200,000 for information leading to the apprehension and conviction of those directly involved in the cynical and deadly trade in human lives. This government, and the alternative government are absolutely committed to stamping out the people smuggling trade that has become a honeypot for lowlife criminals who are interested only in exploiting vulnerable people.

This is not a contest between bleeding hearts and hardliners, this is all about stopping a high risk enterprise involving people smuggling. If we continue to say, as was the case with the Howard and Gillard governments, that, on arrival, you will be processed offshore and then resettled in Australia, you merely enhance the 'pull factor' and more people will take the chance of a sea voyage and more lives will be lost.

Rudd's solution may not be ideal but at least he should be given credit for trying and it is certainly far superior to the rhetoric of turning back boats on the high seas.

Bob:

22 Jul 2013 3:26:38pm

Calling everyone who does not agree with you on this issue a racist, gun wielding vigilante sounds like propaganda on your part. Are you calling the majority of Australians racist vigilantes. This is pretty insulting as most Australians are kind generous and welcoming. We do not however like to be taken advantage of nor see others taken advantage of. Those smuggled into Australia are by definition illegal entrants as the word smuggled implies illegally circumventing the law and specifically the immigration policy set by our government.These people are not fleeing persecution in Indonesia and those in Indonesia have passed through many safe countries on their way to Australia. They did not arrive by boat in Indonesia rather they flew in with a passport and visa. Those from Sri Lanka could easily and safely cross into India.Saying that 90% are genuine refugees is laughable as many have deliberately destroyed their papers so that their circumstances can not be truely known. The only reason one would do this is because one knows that one is not truely fleeing persecution and hence not entitled to claiming refugee status. The tribunal which reviews the appeals seems to classify almost everyone as genuine refugees inculding the people smugglers themselves. Hence saying 90% are genuine refugees is obviously untrue. We simply do not know the circumstances of many of those smuggled into Australia by boats.Those poor unfortunates unable to afford to pay people smugglers are denied any opportunity to emmigrate to Australia through the proper channels as many of our places are filled with those coming by boat and much of the money that would otherwise be spent helping them where they are and helping them to seek refugee staus is spent escorting illegal boats, flying illegal immigrants around and accommodating them in detention centres.

ThatFlemingGent:

22 Jul 2013 7:27:27pm

"Where were your comments when about 1000 illegal immigrants died to Labor's dismantling of an effective border solution?"

Because your claim is complete rubbish. It's not a border protection issue, it's not illegal to seek asylum, it wasn't "dismantled" and wasn't "effective" - asylum numbers followed world trends. You got sucked in by the propaganda just as intended.

The unfortunate reality is that people will perish in risky endeavours. This is not the fault of "Labor" as you claim (would you give Howard the same level of criticism for SIEV X?) as our local policies mean NOTHING to those fleeing already life-threatening situations.

It's the push factors that need attention - but that doesn't win votes and fool mug punters so it's ignored. Fix the problems at the source and the issue is greatly reduced. But that's complex, needs co-operation with other nations and thus not a vote winner.

Instead we have pandering and overt whistling (not dog-whistling, too easy to hear) to the most base xenophobic and outright racist element. Instead we have "stop the boats" and simple propaganda aimed at simple people.

If that offends you, well tough. The article is bang on the money and those whining about it need to look in the mirror.

Helvi:

22 Jul 2013 3:27:29pm

The MSM never mentioned Abbott's Turning-The- Boats-Back saga, I even complained about it here on the Drum, not even ABC made fuss of it. It seems to me that only Labor's policies are scrutinised, and good ones like Gonski, Disability care, plain-packaging of cigarettes ignored.

I have repeating this ad nauseam, this is not about boats, but about people, and have been called inner-city goody two shoes: boats sink happily, people drowning are missed and grieved by relatives, if not Abbott followers.

Ravensclaw:

22 Jul 2013 3:28:07pm

"John Howard's line, "We will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come", worked powerfully on those who suspected filthy foreigners were trying to overtake good upstanding Australia. "

What an absolutely wretched and deceitful strawman by Hardaker.

The people coming to this country from Indonesia via people smuggling are not fleeing Indonesians. They also by-pass two nations that share land borders with Indonesia that have signed the Refugee Convention i.e. East Timor and Papua New Guinea.

Almost all Australians do not contest our genuine refugee intake. Some of us who are genuinely compassionate, want to shut down the people smuggling trade from Indonesia to Australia.

And the nail in the coffin, what 1st world country would tolerate disorderly immigration as government policy as Hardaker and his watermelon friends would have us do.

And here's another nail in the coffin. Why the hell should we listen to any and all who consistently lie about this debate, and bully those with more enlightened opinion e.g. "It's push factors", "you're racist!" and "you abandon genuine refugees", etc etc etc. How many more must drown to appease these delusionists?

After reading this, I'm not sure if a Walkley award is in any way prestigious, if this is the rot we get from a winner.

OmMarit:

22 Jul 2013 3:36:02pm

We all know how many desperate people there are on this planet.

But at the end of the day our compassion comes to a point where we say, enough. We will help a certain number per year but that is ALL. Lest the tipping point be reached and OUR country start to get dragged down in trying to help this mass of humanity.

Above all WE have the right to control the process of how this is going to happen. To set the ceiling on how many we are going to allow into this country. To have some say in the cultural and ethnic mix.

The pull factor of a country like Australia is extreme. Not just the job opportunities but also our generous welfare system.

But compassion has its limits.

As so many have rightly pointed out, if we do not control the numbers coming into Australia the trickle would become a river.

At the end of the day our government would be bankrupted in having to deal with and process these unexpected new arrivals, the strains they would place on our housing and welfare systems. Because they all seem to arrive with NEEDS. Which have to be serviced and funded - just look at all the specialist refugee support services in our communities we now have to provide. Unlike many who have immigrated to this country under the business category, or who came here under specific immigration schemes in the past, in times of high employment. Or even the waves of european refugees post WW2. Who somehow just managed to get on with things without all these specialist support services. They also arrive here in the context of high levels of youth unemployment.

And the ultimate insult also being, that thanks to the connivance of the do gooders, they then have the cheek to try and take legal action against US if things don't work out the way they wanted.

As a sixth generation ageing Australian I would like to hope that I still live in a country in another ten years that has a functioning social welfare system. Not one that has totally collapsed under the weight of asylum seekers flooding into this country.

I think if anything, both the proposed asylum seeker policies of the LNP and of Rudd are in answer to that genuine fear that so many Australian CITIZENS now have.

This planet is grossly overpopulated. That is the reality. There are millions of refugees in the world. If we have to take desperate measures to protect our lifestyle in Australia then so be it. It is called survival!

Possibly if the inhabitants of so many of these countries did not have so many freaking kids, did not have religions that denied women their human rights and their rights to family planning they would not have so many ghastly political problems in the first place. Which then cause the inhabitants to want to flee from them.

Ann:

22 Jul 2013 6:26:40pm

A very nice speech, but as a news article today reported, visas from overseas are being exploited at a high percent, there are so many more people arriving by plane who are FAR richer than the boat refugees, but you aren't crying about them. You cry about boats. Because the boat people are just rich enough to be "not that poor" but not rich enough to be "not a bother, they won't drain us". Basically, they've been beaten up but don't have two broken legs, so you think they should be fine to get up and keep running.

luckyungenerouscountry:

22 Jul 2013 11:20:51pm

I would rather my taxes went to supporting those families and especially their children who deserve a chance at life in a free safe country than to pay for your aged care. This conflict is only going to become more intense over coming decades. More creative and compassionate solutions are needed.

John:

23 Jul 2013 8:14:08am

Silly comments, Ann.

Just because Indian students are defrauding Australia by using fake or forged passports and other documents is no reason for Australia to ignore other criminal activity. Entering Australia without permission is illegal.

And please, please, stop and take time to think about your aircraft arrival comments. People who enter Australia via air do so legally after securing, and showing at migration a valid visa. So they are not illegal entrants. DIAC has no worries about such people. First, the numbers have not materially changed for decades and second, the overstaying is usually for genuine reasons such as illness or other inability to travel, the overstay periods are very short and those people return to their home countries voluntarily and at their own cost.

mack:

Alpo:

23 Jul 2013 12:08:09pm

"Australia to ignore other criminal activity"... Still writing your ignorant comment John? For the nth time: Boat people ARE NOT, read again ARE NOT, criminals. Please do show a modicum of capacity to learn mate, your are just embarrassing yourself.

Steeden:

David Latimer:

22 Jul 2013 3:39:24pm

But this is article is manipulation-by-language. It is propaganda. The article is entirely emotional and irrational. Where is the evidence that Australia is committing genocide?

It discusses nothing about the thousands who drowned in the ocean -- these concerns are legitimate. Australia has a humanitarian refugee intake and hopefully it can increase. These are not mentioned in the article.

As an independent voter who supports multiculturalism, the main reason I am not even considering the Greens for the Senate, during the next election, is their lack of sympathy for refugees.

Ann:

David Latimer:

23 Jul 2013 4:16:00am

I do not know the exact number. Is it exactly 1000 people who are dead, Ann? I thought it was more, but I don't know the exact number - does anyone know. Maybe it is just several hundred dead people? or we can write men, women and children. How many children? just a few children? scores of children? How many babies? What are the names of these children? ... do we know? Arguing over statistics can be a great way of confusing a sound moral argument.

Ann, try to think of these people as more than blobs floating lifeless in the water. Each of them has a face, a story and some who grieves their death. Spend a second thinking about each one, and when you're tired and depressed of thinking about this needless death, go back and read your comment again.

Kitty:

22 Jul 2013 3:46:05pm

You have summarised all that is going on so well. From Howard and his vote winning rhetoric to Abbott and his three years of fear and hate as he demonises asylum seekers and panders to a very dark side of human nature. It is evil indeed and it demeans us all.I hold MSM equally responsible as they have pandered to the great politics of "the best opposition leader ever" and what a marvel he is....so moral, so caring, so truthful he will be PM without any scrutiny, or so they tell us. Our society is becoming uglier by the day and it is passed time for this to be off the politics table and for all politicians to think and act with decency, intelligence and a regional/international dialogue .No more excuses, no more fear, no more discrimination we are all responsible. This is a shameful time in our history and future generations will be rightly appalled by our behaviour.

James Murphy:

It's a bad situation, made worse by politicians for their own grubby needs. Just out of interest, why is it all down to Howard, Abbott, and the MSM, and apparently, no one else?

You do realise that Labor have been in government since since 2007, don't you??

As the government, they have responsibilities, and, as far as I can tell, have done nothing except use the situation for their own political stunts as well. Yes, Howard and Abbott should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves, but blaming everyone except those who have actually had power to do something about it since 2007, shows a bit of political bias on your part.

"...Our society is becoming uglier by the day and it is passed time for this to be off the politics table and for all politicians to think and act with decency, intelligence and a regional/international dialogue..." - Yes, indeed, I too, live in hope of this...

Dr Mark:

22 Jul 2013 3:47:34pm

I, for one, am for immigration. Taking our fair share of refugees in. But wrecking the business model of the people smugglers is a good thing. A picture says 1000 words.. those words are.. " forget coming to Australia by boat. Queue up like everyone else does, and wait your turn! Don't waste your money on a dodgy boat trip from Indonesia- it's not worth risking your life to end up in PNG".

sean:

22 Jul 2013 7:47:13pm

"wrecking the business model of the people smugglers is a good thing"

Funny how for many many years this debate did not focus at all on people smugglers, then all of a sudden a few years ago the politicians started going on about the "business model" of people smugglers and how we simply had to break it. It just wasn't an issue before.

Now in a simply wonderful demonstration of the way people think what they are told to think, rather than coming up with their own ideas, the debate is all about the people smugglers and their business model.

It should be about the people coming here from some shithole and how we react to that. Obsessing about the means of transport is just a distraction that (as the author says) allows us to stop looking at the people themselves.

Curious party:

22 Jul 2013 3:51:15pm

The piece of language that has sprung up recently that bothers me the most is something like 'irregular maritime arrivals'. These are not people who have arrived here on the late-running ferry. These are people who are seeking asylum from horrible conditions overseas. (Cue all the people who are about to tell me that all of the people coming by boat are 'illegal immigrants' or 'economic migrants'. *sigh*)

Raelene:

22 Jul 2013 3:52:50pm

Great article David. Your words are a powerful evocation of the truth of the situation. This new strategy is the culmination of years of dehumanising assylum seekers who are forced to take the perilous journey by boat away from oppression towards what they hoped would be a place where they could finally feel safe. I am struggling to comprehend that we have come to this and I cannot believe that this is happening in my country in my lifetime. Were is our humainty and compassion? Shame on Kevin Rudd and the Federal Government. Shame on Tony Abbott and the Federal Opposition. And shame on us if we let this happen.

David Latimer:

22 Jul 2013 7:21:03pm

Raelene, where is your humanity and compassion? Why do you care more about traffickers than refugees, who are dying by the hundreds in the oceans?

Imagine a child caught on these sinking boats ... the desperation and horror that their life is going to soon end. Hearing the suffering and screams of the adults. Can you imagine their tiredness in keeping afloat for another hour or so, separated from their families or watching them die. And imagine the final pain when salt water overcomes their lungs.

Rae:

22 Jul 2013 3:54:13pm

Australia is one of the few truly multicultural countries in the world.

However we also believe in a fair go and if that means we question cultures who do not offer a fair go to women or people with other religions then it isn't the race that is the problem but the ideologies are simply too divergent for any real compromise to be reached.

Your point re propaganda is correct. Government and media spin meistersingers are brilliant in it's use.

You are pretty clever also with the so sad image of the western looking woman in the sneakers being comforted by another.Attractive head of hair as well.

Actions speak louder than words or images however and it should be remembered that Australia has taken more immigrants and treats them to a fair and equitable life than any other nation in per capita terms.

Ann:

22 Jul 2013 6:29:57pm

See? You are instantly suspicious that these "boat people" may be culturally different to you - they may not give women a "fair go". They're, you know... darker than us. So they're probably dodgy. "Compromise can't be reached" you say. Look at how the article tugs at our heart-strings with an "attractive" and "western" looking refugee instead of what we know are the actual foreign and dirty hordes. Honestly I am astonished, you could not more perfectly have shown the mindset this article talks about. Bravo!

John:

23 Jul 2013 8:20:47am

You should read more widely, Ann.

The loudest and angriest complaints about these illegal entrants are coming from the very people you refer to in this post. That is why the ALP is so concerned that it is getting thrashed in the seats in outer Sydney and Melbourne - typically the places where new entrants have settled. Didn't you read Ferguson's comments?

They are the genuine migrants, who waited patiently, completed all requirements and behaved properly and legally.

They are the most outraged of us all at this corruption of the system.

Alpo:

23 Jul 2013 12:12:36pm

John, those are the "Howard's battlers", do you remember them? That's why Tony Abbott wants to gain them and he and his propagandists do their best to feed the paranoia and scaremongering through radio and TV and newspapers . That's why they want, like you are doing today, manipulate them into believing that asylum seekers are just "illegals". They are "asylum seekers", full stop.

Curious party:

22 Jul 2013 3:54:36pm

Maybe we could get the Right to be more open to asylum seekers if we repackaged the language ourselves a little bit. Maybe we could call them aspirational, hardworking future Australians doing their bit to defray the costs to mining magnates to fly them over here on 457 visas?

Phillip:

22 Jul 2013 3:56:43pm

David,

I suspect you're being far too kind to the government's spin doctors. I wish it weren't so, but our politicians only reflect public opinion. Some have their heart in it (e.g. Morrison) and others justify it with self-interest.

David:

22 Jul 2013 3:59:31pm

At least here we have a piece by someone who knows exactly what they are talking about. If you ever wanted an article that twists words and uses language in an effort to make us all squirm, then here it is.

Forget all the dark and nasty meanings. Most Australians are happy with our intake of asylum seekers and would probably accept an increase in the number. What we don't like, though, are the people who side-step the official route through the UNHCR camps and pay to get on boats to get here, denying those in the camps their rightful opportunities. Neither do we like the smugglers who take the money knowing that there is a fair chance the boats will never make it.

"Anyone who cares about compassion and fairness should be on alert" says Mr Hardaker. Well, we are all compassionate about refugees which is why we accept so many from the camps. It is our respect for "fairness" that drives us to object to the boat people, who buy their way to our country. When the pro boat people wordsmiths take off their rose tinted glasses and see reality, we might all be better off.

Ann:

22 Jul 2013 6:31:06pm

Well then David why don't you support the government that wants to increase refugee intake - the Greens. Since if we give more legitimate places they won't feel the pressure to come illegally. It makes sense! I'm glad you're going to vote Green.

Zing:

Labor and the Liberals are clear in their message:-Maintain control of the borders;-Prevent unwanted immigrants from exploiting our asylum system; and-Deter immigrants from risking their lives at sea.

Both parties are clear on their goals and means. There is no further need for dog whistles or hidden messages. The public knows exactly what the issues are and realise that *something* must be done. The status quo simply isn't working anymore and will get worse with time.

Are you concerned that people might be exploiting our refugee policies? Or that boat people may not be genuine? Careful. According to the author, you're skirting dangerously close to Nazism. And you don't want to be a nazi, right?

Yeah. It's one of *those* articles. The one where the Left is right and anyone who agrees with the Right is a fascist. An article that points out the shameful propaganda of the other side, but fails to mention that their side is just as bad (if not worse - As we all know, the greens can kick a political football as well as anyone).

In fact, you'll notice that with boat people, the more traditional propaganda is now restricted to the pro-boat people lobby and the far left-wing. They focus on emotion, anger and outrage. Yet you'll never see any mention of a concrete motive or means. The best you'll get is reference to some subjective ideal like "humanitarianism".

But we all know what the far-left truly desire: Open borders. And they will say anything and use any justification to bring it about. That's the elephant in the room. And until the pro-boat lobby try to keep it hidden, they will continue to be unconvincing to the mainstream.

Tristan:

22 Jul 2013 7:14:19pm

"But we all know what the far-left truly desire: Open borders."

Open borders?

You mean like the Coaliton's uncapped, non-labour market tested 457 visa scheme they introduced 17 years ago in 1996, which didn't require jobs to be advertised locally, had no compulsory training component, had no market wage, started off with no minimum wage, which has failed to address alleged skills shortages, has been widely rorted and slackly regulated.

James Murphy:

OmMarit:

22 Jul 2013 4:05:08pm

David it is people like you who label anyone who has an issue with this nation not being able to control its borders, to have some system of screening those who wish to come to this country, whether as immigrants or seeking refugee status, as nothing better than than Nazis under Hitler's Germany, which seems to be the gist of your argument, that eventually DOES drive them to take a harder line in how they think.

Your diatribe in fact has the opposite effect of shaming them. I think we are all just SO tired of these sort of rants.

Its also like calling a person a "racist" because as a feminist woman they have a problem with this country having high levels of immigrants and refugees coming from Moslem countries who are still insisting that their women cover up in black tents after they arrive here.

I assume this is where you are also going in your arguments.

I think this sort of labelling and hysterical emotiveness has more than anything polarised debate in this country.

I, as a former Green party member, middle-aged sixth generation feminist tertiary-educated woman who cares about the environment, tries to have a low carbon footprint by not owning a car, recycles, never had a criminal conviction... resent being being labelled a Nazi and by inference a racist as well. Because I oppose the uncontrolled arrival of illegal asylum seeker boats to my country.

I can assure you that any legislation introduced to stop these illegal arrivals happening - permanently - is not going to then make me move further to the right in my political beliefs in other areas. To become the sort of person who may have voted for Adolf Hitler. To go out and harass black people, Asians, Jews or any other group in our society.

Lee:

22 Jul 2013 7:45:23pm

@Ann: "If these foreigners are going to discriminate against their women, they should do it at home. Not here where we can see it. It's unsettling." Ouch, sarcasm. The point is, no humanitarian wants obscene ideologies which threaten our citizens spreading into our country. That's pretty easy to understand for anyone who actually cares about the human rights of our people.

Those who subscribe to an ideology which ultimately calls for the abuse or execution of our citizens in their ideal of a State, have *no business* coming to our country, or to any civilized country. People indoctrinated with a murderous ideology need to be encouraged to utterly reject it through being helped to realise how unacceptable such ideologies are to us - not facilitated to spread them.

FuzzyBob:

22 Jul 2013 4:05:33pm

The author of this article asks the question-Who is behind the propaganda that turns asylum seekers "into victims, rather than viewing them as disease-ridden intruders"?

The answer is very simple and clearly stated within the article itself. The little coward John Howard who manipulated the base racism within the Australian so called "christian" fundamentalism to win an election.

That agenda has been fully endorsed and adopted by the succession of hypocritical supporters from the LNP Opposition. This started with Turnbull , Stone, Mirrabella, Bishop etc and found fertile ground with the hateful Abbot and Morrison.

Fully supported by a host of malignant media "commentators" from the MSM and ABC and their shock jock propagandists.

They are now desperately in panic trying to retrieve their mantra and sloganeering to undermine the policy that will to stop the people smugglers and people drowning.

James Murphy:

22 Jul 2013 11:29:27pm

Ann, admittedly, it could be interpreted both ways, but the post said "we don't need more thugs here in Australia". It doesn't say anything specific about Australians rioting...except that, presumably, as we apparently don't need "more", then we must already have some, and yes, there are enough "made in Australia" antisocial and violent people around as it is (and probably with fewer reasons for it too), without the need to accept the people who have already explicitly demonstrated their abilities in that regard - ie, those charged and found guilty, not "everyone".

Trek:

22 Jul 2013 4:16:11pm

There are two groups of people who still don't want to see the obvious; i.e. that people smuggling business must be stopped. It must be stopped to prevent drowning of innocent men women and children and it must be stopped so that we, once again can have control of our immigration programme. Our immigration has been gradually taken over by people smugglers. Currently there is almost 100% increase of people arriving by boats - annually. At this rate of increase it would take only 3 years before we get over 100,000 boat arrivals annually and continuing to increase. Am I exaggerating? Well. had I sad that last year that in the first six months of this year we would have 20,000 boat arrivals, many would also say that I was exaggerating. People should be reminded that we currently have on average 200 boat people arriving every day. This is such profitable business for people smugglers and there are millions of potential customers. Blind Freddy can see that, without some strong action, people smugglers will take the total control of our immigration programme.

The two groups of people who choose not to see the obvious include:

1. Vested Interest

People smugglers have also created a very profitable business for many Australians, such as many people employed in accommodating the new arrivals and many immigration lawyers to whom the boat arrivals can bring even more money than to people smugglers. These groups will do everything possible to protect their, newly found, goldmine.

2. Some na?ve 'self righteous' souls who choose to claim for themselves some superior morality and care, unwilling to see the consequences of their 'assumed superior morality'. There is absolutely nothing compassionate to see women and children drowning on the open sea. Yet, they choose not to see such 'small detail' about their mistaken 'compassion'.

We need real strong action to stop such well established criminal network. Like drug cartels, people smugglers will fight any attempt to stop their dirty people trade. No criminal network gives up so much of easy money that easily. Furthermore they also know that they will always have unquestioned support from the above two groups of Australians. It is going to be a tough fight and frankly, the odds are still on the people smugglers side. They have business skills, resources and they don't care for public opinion.

Greig:

22 Jul 2013 4:17:22pm

The slogan for offshore processing policy is ?Stop the boats?, and is deliberately used so that we are reminded that this policy is not about preventing people from seeking asylum, but about protecting innocent lives by discouraging embarkation on dangerous sea journeys.

If this is deliberate propaganda as Hardaker asserts, it is missing the mark. It is all too easy for wordsmiths such a Hardaker to turn these policies around to make it look heartless, insensitive toward asylum seekers (when the intent is the exact opposite) and declare it to be evil, and even shamelessly invoking Godwins law at the outset by drawing parallels with Nazism.

The slogan for offshore processing policy should not be ?Stop the boats?. It should be ?Save the asylum seeker?.

Greig:

22 Jul 2013 8:34:43pm

Actually Ann, yes. Both major parties support the rapid processing of asylum seekers and immigrants within the capability of the system to absorb them, and the bureaucracy to process them. Australia sets a quota based on pragmatic limitations of the system. The problem situation we have at the moment is that the influx of boat people has swamped the system.

Bludgerette:

22 Jul 2013 4:17:28pm

Finally Kevin07 is showing the real Kevin. You may all recall that the real Julia never emerged before being struck down by the real Kevin.This man would sell his family if it would get himself re-elected.What he will actually do if he becomes the PM can be gleaned from his current and past actions.We can be assured that he will be expeditious with announcements, especially in front of any church, short on action and blissfully uncaring of outcomes or costs as he has a triple A and speaks Chinese.He will go down in history as our greatest PMs.Kevin you get it and we can now see your soul. It is beautiful and totally poll driven.We all love you. The sooner you become PM the better for us all, especially the indigent, wounded, gay and deserving. Your church announcements are eagerly awaited, as like the pope we know that god guides you.

Michael Tandy:

22 Jul 2013 4:18:02pm

I have great difficulty in understanding our politicians(and unfortunately they are our politicians, they represent us) concern with stopping the boats. Australia was founded by boat people and under the rules we are now asked to accept the First Fleet would today be diverted to PNG.

Lawrence of Bavaria :

22 Jul 2013 4:20:43pm

Don't bring the Jews into the current refugee debate in Australia, David. Yes - often they paid people smugglers to flee certain death in Nazi Germany to get them over the border or on to a ship bound for safety. But Jewish families fled all together. As a family. Not just the men leaving their parents, siblings, wives and children behind. They fled to the closest country that was safe. Not to the other side of the world. From there they immigrated through the proper channels into other countries often waiting long periods of time until that became possible. They didn't toss their papers. Often it was all they had left. Their identity. They didn't riot in their safe haven countries, demanded handouts or used the courts to gain residency. They just got on with it. Against all odds. Modern Australia is built on the back of refugees from anywhere in the world. I don't think Australians are against refugees. They are against people claiming to be refugees when they are not. People who bribe their way in front of others who are waiting for years under dreadful circumstances. People who allegedly have fled persecution only to destroy the facility where they are held for processing - a place where they are housed, fed, sometimes educated and, most importantly, where they are finally safe from persecution. People who have the numbers of refugee advocates on speed dial on their mobile phones, people who are briefed to tell the exact same back story that will get them refugee status. People with a breathtaking sense of entitlement. I don't think Australians are against asylum seekers. We are a welcoming lot. But not to people who want to take us for a ride.

Jewish relayive:

23 Jul 2013 12:01:11pm

Jewish people did not necessarily flee in family groups. Often they fled in separate groups and as individuals. My mother-in-law's mother has said how glad she was to have only one of her children with her when fleeing Europe as she'd not have 'made it out'.Jewish people have resorted to use of law in countries they arrived in where they've found it necessary. And many DID toss their papers or 'lose' them, so as not to be identified as 'jewish'.Asylum seekers are rioting in internment camps in Nauru etc, not in 'safe haven countries'.You talk nonsense

Simon:

22 Jul 2013 4:28:27pm

David

Your political correctness is sickening, as are your assumptions that you're standing on the high moral ground and that every person not in favour of the current ridiculous lawless uncontrolled situation is a dirty racist.

There are plenty of level-headed, non-racist people in this country who support multi-culturalism and an intake of refugees every year. I am one of them. And we damned sick of people like filthily smearing us and making our we're racist or so dumb we've been duped by exploitative politicians.

It's people like you who are the problem. You are kidding yourself if you believe even a majority of recent arrivals are genuine refugees rather than economic migrants with vastly exaggerated or completely fictitious claims of threats against safety.

Those of us who aren't busy posing on the issue (a pose that the taxpayers, not the posers, pay for) are perfectly humane but realise this insane lawless unregulated situation with boat arrivals simply cannot continue.

Zing:

22 Jul 2013 6:47:57pm

Next you'll be telling us that the Mexicans hopping the American borders each year are genuine refugees.

When it comes to unwanted migration, the pro-boat lobby is the one who is operating on faith. Having decided that these people are refugees based on no evidence, we find that no amount of evidence will change their mind.

In fact, you'll find that the catholic church is on your side on the refugee issue. After all, the poor and illiterate of today are the converts of tomorrow.

people lived with dinosaurs:

Jimmy Necktie:

22 Jul 2013 5:10:04pm

"insane lawless unregulated situation "

As I understand it there are all sorts of laws and regulations regarding refugees. I'm pretty sure quite a lot of them end up in detention centres, for example. Surely some regulation is responsible for that.

What will you say when the boats keep coming? More laws? What if we tow them back but they keep coming, more laws? What if we start sinking them and they keep coming, more laws?

Perhaps more/ tougher isn't the way to go about it. It rarely ever is.

Graeme of Melbourne:

Thank you, Simon, for providing a perfect illustration of what the author was talking about.

As has been pointed out time and time again, it's not illegal to be a refugee. Someone who presents himself or herself at our borders as a refugee is not breaking any of our laws.

Despite this, asylum seekers are persistently described as "illegals". The situation is described as "lawless".

When these labels are applied by our politicians - who understand the law of the land and our country's international obligations - it is for only one reason: to dehumanise those seeking asylum. They are criminals - they deserve to be locked up. They are criminals - they don't have any rights. Turn back the boats! They're all criminals - who cares what fate awaits them?

notinventedhere:

22 Jul 2013 6:07:23pm

Simon, we do not , cannot, and will never control the boats which leave the 80,000 islands of Indonesia. Nor do we have any responsibility for them or who gets on them, even if they drown. It is simply beyond our control.

We are responsible to treat those who arrive like we would wish to be treated. Take them in and let them work. What are we worried about, the numbers ( 10,00 or so) are small, we can easily accommodate them.

The proposition that , for example, Hazaras leaving Afghanistan ot Tamisl leaving Sri Lanka are economic migrants is fanciful. Death and persecution are stronger motivators.

And even if they are economic migrants, is that not what we want in Australia? If they are prepared to brave death, I suspect they will be hard workers.

Sarah:

mack:

22 Jul 2013 7:32:46pm

And that, Sarah, is a function of our soft refugee determination process, not the true status of the claimant.

There are many cases of asylum seekers being refused in other Western countries, only to have their claims recognised here. How about the recent case of the Egyptian refugee with alleged terrorist connections? He had been refused asylum in Great Britain. Consider the case of the Iraqi who was offered protection because he had a reasonable fear of violence from the husband of the woman with whom he had an affair back in Iraq. Or the case of the lady from Pakistan who had a reasonable fear of domestic violence should she have to marry and live in Pakistan? The determination process has simply been overwhelmed by the number of boat arrivals.

This is what Tony Blair had to say about the issue:

[quote]Essentially, Britain, like all European countries, had inherited the post-war, post- Holocaust system and sentiment on asylum.The presumption was that someone who claimed asylum was persecuted and should be taken in, not cast out. It was an entirely understandable emotion in the aftermath of such horror. Unfortunately it was completely unrealistic in the late twentieth century. The presumption was plainly false: most asylum claims were not genuine. Disproving them, however, was almost impossible. The combination of the courts, with their liberal instinct; the European Convention on Human Rights, with its absolutist attitude to the prospect of returning someone to an unsafe community; and the UN Convention of Refugees, with its context firmly that of 1930s Germany, meant that, in practice, once someone got into Britain and claimed asylum, it was the Devil?s own job to return them. [/quote]

And that's the problem (apart from the reality that the UN Refugee Convention is so broken, that even the UN has given up on it).

John:

The Citizen:

22 Jul 2013 4:31:26pm

Mr Rudd is using asylum seekers as a human shield against electoral failure. Are there no depths he wouldn?t descend to and nobody he wouldn?t betray to advance his ambition?Surely we have never seen a more ruthless politician in our times.

QC Bob:

Alfie:

Texaslad:

22 Jul 2013 4:32:32pm

As an extreme example of Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies, you lost the argument before it began. Can't anyone discuss proganda without using the deaths of six million people, 70 years ago, to claim the moral high ground?

dianaa:

22 Jul 2013 5:16:25pm

On tyhe topic, I have no problem with immigrants nor refugees, there are millions suffering in tent cities in Somalia and millions elsewhere in Africa. People who need refuge who don't have thousands of dollars to pay smugglers and buy satellite phones to call up AMSA for the HMAS ecort the minute they leave Java. Get the smuggler parasites out of the equation and then we can accept the most at need whereever they are.

Texaslad: why is it the Nazi Holocaust only 6 million people? I believe it was more like 12 million, but certain people only consider the extermination of one race and not the Gypsies, Political prisoners, Homosexuals, Mentally Ill and the myriad of others who went the same way as the 6 million.

stephen:

22 Jul 2013 5:50:14pm

Yes, I'm surprized that the death and misery of 6 million people is here unearthed for the mere sociological inquiry of a folk who want somewhere else to live.Not to mention that the naming of 'Nazism' might, in such a pretence, actually upset memories of about 18 million others who died too.

Lee:

22 Jul 2013 4:35:29pm

What a bizarre article. In fact those claiming asylum are treated with such exalted respect that the adults' responsibility for putting their children on leaky boats instead of claiming asylum in dozens of countries surrounding the countries they've come from (which would *not* necessitate dangerous boat journeys) has *never* even been called into question. That's right, people can reject a dozen suitable countries, and travel through a dozen more suitable countries, chuck their kids on leaky boats, and according to the journos, the responsibility is all on us!

In fact there's no hardship or danger asylum-claimants experience that *isn't* sheeted home to us. Well, it's a way to create outrage and "conflict" in the community, which is Story-Telling 101 in the journalism business of course.

The choices for asylum-claimants are presented as either living in Iran (for example) or Australia - we're never even shown so much as a world-map, let alone given more detailed information on the topic of several closer suitable countries that are safer to journey to, so we could see the bigger picture of the choices that get made by claimants.

Instead, according to Hardaker, "The propagandists are, unfortunately, borrowing from the playbook of the Nazis and those before (and after) them who have declared war on "the alien". Here Hardaker construes the "bounty" on people smugglers as a neo-Nazi attack on asylum-claimants...

A brave try (to be polite) - but I think that's a purple-prose over-reach, even for the "journalism" business.

MT_Syd:

STB:

22 Jul 2013 4:42:27pm

Please spare us your propaganda - the issue boils down to whether all Australians as well as you will be prepared to work for 50c/Hr in the future ( & as advocated by Gina Rinehart ).Simply put the more such refugees come here the more our standard of a living wage will slide.

James Murphy:

22 Jul 2013 11:48:39pm

Oh come on... really? What a load of rubbish. Maybe, possibly, just possibly, there might end up being a pool of refugees willing to work for less than the minimum wage, but that certainly doesn't make it legal to take advantage of them, and i really can't see the minimum wage being lowered without an almighty (and justified) fight.

I'd be more concerned about the formal work visa process, because then it's possible for the employer to manipulate and severely exploit their workers, particularly if they are working FIFO, and are not really told all the facts...

chol:

22 Jul 2013 4:45:25pm

Yes I have to agree, that we have stooped so low, is the shame our grandchildren will have to bear. When this topic is used to smokescreen the real issues of non governance.neither party has any real solutions to improving the lot of Australia and Australians,remember this position Australia find's it self in is of there making, and it is only the good fortune of our minerals sector that has made them look as good .

OntheRun:

22 Jul 2013 4:47:25pm

People arriving by boat- Spend around $10,000 on average in Indonesia alone on corrupt officials and criminals. This starts at the airport. One boat of 50 people is worth $500,000. Australia is currently supporting criminal elements in Indonesia by accepting these arrivals. Isn't corruption one of the causes of refugees in the first place? Why create a refugee society in Indonesia?

- Have the ability to communicate with criminal elements. This is a certainty and something that I personally see as a negative for any potential arrival.

- Are predominantly male. This may be due to sexist cultures in other countries but this sexist culture does not need to be supported by Australia.

- Have access to funds greater than many Australians and pass through a place Australians travel to go on holiday. We are ignoring the majority of the world (20% live on $2 or less a day) that could never afford this. Our acceptance of boat arrivals is not only sexist, it is elitist.

- Can not safely live with the opposite gender or children in Australian UN refugee camps. If these people would make good Australian citizens, why is this so? Shouldn't decent people of either gender or any age be able to live together?

- Results in death as sea when the death rate is far less likely in the closer UN refugee camps

- Provides arrivals with better accommodation than many UN camps. How the shorter wait time and better facilities result in us hearing about mental health issues when this is not reported for Sudanese or other refugees is quite unique. We could save funds and improve the arrivals mental health.

We spoil a sexist, elitist and criminally associated group of people to the detriment of our law abiding neighbours whilst causing more death by accepting any boat arrival.

I am fully in favour of any language that stops any of this. For a linguist to blame the words used whilst selecting such emotional words himself (including nazi) is highly hypocritical.

Act Rationally:

22 Jul 2013 4:50:46pm

Firstly "We will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come" is the responsibility of government. People expect that government should uphold this tenet, so your point about emotional language is pretty weak.

Secondly, sorry to say this, but I call Godwins.

Thirdly, we are not talking about people who are in direct danger. Apart from Sri Lanka (which I will get too) all of these people have already left their country of alledged persecution. They are in other countries that have nothing to do with their persecution claims. So no, we are not sending the Jews back to Nazi Germany!

With regard to Sri Lanka, they are still sorting out the issues associated with a long and bloody civil war, where both sides committed attrocities and animosity runs freely (Tamil Tigers over ran an Army base in the 1980's killing 1500 Sri Lankan soldiers - do you think people can forget this type of loss quickly?). However the return rate has been quite high so I guess their claims of persecution for things that the Convention accepts as genuine refugee characteristics isn't that strong.

I for one want Australia to select those individuals whom we want to grant refugee status too - not to have people self-select because they have the funds to do it. This policy merely looks to make that policy outcome happen. I dislike the Labor party immensely (that does not make me a coalition supporter mind you) and hate Rudd. But if he can implement this policy (and that is a big IF considering his performance in the past) I applaud this as a real solution to eliminating the boats arriving and the associated drownings.

I look forward to all the same individuals who attacked Howard so endlessly during his time to now take on Rudd as well, seeing as this policy is far to the right compared to the Pacific Solution. If they don't, well, if it sounds like a hypocrite and acts like a hypocrite.....you get the point.

Jim:

22 Jul 2013 4:58:23pm

It's very simple. These boat people are illegal economic immigrants. They are not refugees. Refugees do not travel via 2 or 3 countries then pay $10,000 to people smugglers and destroy their documentation.

It is not illegal to seek asylum, but they are required to do this in the FIRST country outside their own.

stephen:

22 Jul 2013 5:07:22pm

A refugee would hardly complain about $60 million of damage, if, 1. they didn't do it, and 2, everyone else got 60 million dollars worth of facilities to trash.

If they were genuine refugees you would rightly expect that they might have a modicum of gratefulness to the country which has relieved them of a supposed grave situation, one from which they had fled before they destroyed their papers on board the boats. It is reasonable that we remain suspicious and wary of visitors who tell lies to get what they want, then resort to violence and destruction when they don't get it right away.

James Murphy:

23 Jul 2013 12:17:56am

"Grateful" is the right word at all. People given refugee status shouldn't have to be grateful, they should just be able to get on with their new lives in Australia, and complain about politicians and taxes like the rest of us do now.

Asylum seekers shouldn't need to be grateful either, but then, it's be nice if a select few troublemakers (and we all know it only takes a handful of people to incite such behavior in a crowd) didn't burn down most of the detention centre too. It'd have to take some pretty serious maltreatment by staff in the centre to justify that, really.

Tristan:

22 Jul 2013 8:27:08pm

I'll tell you what economic migrants are.

They're visa overstayers escaping dire economic conditions in their own countries, most who arrived by plane, like some tourists or international students with documents, sometimes falsified, offering to work cash in hand, for free, for trial periods, offering to pay the sponsorship costs of the employer, employment agency or migration agency, and in one case the salary, tax and super, taking up offers to buy businesses for sale because the vendor says it comes with sponsorship included where you can self sponsor or sponsor others, undertaking Mickey Mouse short courses run by dodgy sounding private education providers to extend their stay in Australia indefinitely and using the 457 visa as a backdoor to permanent residency.

genfie:

Phil of South Perth:

22 Jul 2013 5:10:20pm

Well put Simon, I agree 100% with youWhen Bob Carr recently made the comment on economic migrants I thought "tell me something I don't know" and waited for the do gooders to start bleating. My challenge to all the people out there that want this ridiculous asylum seeker/boat business to continue unabated sponsor some "refugees" for resident visas.

peter:

It dishonestly suggests that boat arrivals are the only asylum seekers who come here - that to 'stop the boats is to stop all refugees.

It maintains that it is more moral to require asylum seekers to drown in the attempt to get here than to try to deter them from doing so.

It brands all those who disagree with the writer as racists - very ecumenical racists its seems as there are boat arrivals from almost every race, region and religion in the world.

Australia is one of the few countries in the world that voluntarilly resettles refugees in large numbers (we are in third place after the US and Canada). People who agree with the writer belittle that and compare us to countries that have no control over their borders.

Australia's social contract is based on playing by the rules. We welcome any number of refugees and immigrants (and 457 visa holders) if they come here on our terms.

After the Vietnam War when 4 million refugees fled that country, Australia's response (at least when Fraser got in) was to vastly increase our resettlement program and process arrivals in countries on route.

ringside:

Sinekal:

22 Jul 2013 5:19:29pm

Kevin Rudd enthuses me as much as the flu or a minor STD.. but if his new spin works I will give him his due credit. He has slammed the door in the face of the bleeeding hearts who are naive enough to believe that all the boat people are fleeing persecution in the country they claim to have come from... As they all seem to have lost their documents after arriving in Indonesia, who can determine beyond the well coached lies, that they are even refugees.

If every person denied a boat passage to Australia is replaced by a genuine refugee from a UN camp then I applaud it. Those people sit in squalor and patiently watch and wait as their spots are stolen by selfish opportunists who pay boat smugglers and lie to get ahead of the queue . Then if it is not to their liking they trash 60 million dollars worth of their future country of residence. Good riddance.

Alison Cann:

22 Jul 2013 5:22:48pm

David, Where is this "the darkness in the souls of millions of Australians.'that you are tap tap tapping into?To have a "soul" is to be about religion and spirituality and we can't decide on gay marriage as we step aboard the gender carriage of spirituality.To have the darkness you must have the lightness and before you have both you must have a soul. Where is the boot leather on it in this light walk when we talk and walk the talk past the sunset as the sunset claws in a pause before the black curtain of night falls. Just where are we tap tap tapping down into in the cold, seemly gas tap of life as the moon rises and the night closes in and the shark bites back in and the ghost riders ride and ride and then in the morning the streaks cross across the sky at the crack of dawn when the disappearing black night faces away into day.

the yank:

22 Jul 2013 5:23:49pm

Why have you lost the essential point of Rudd's plan?

This was always a regional issue not just an Australian one and it needs a regional approach.

Australia can and should greatly increase its intake of asylum seekers but to do that and take the community with it the government needs to get a handle on what is happening. Part of that process is to find countries that are willing to take refugees, with Australia's help so that the toxic elements are removed from the debate.

The region needs to sit down together and talk about how these people can best be helped. That includes speaking with Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Indonesia and the other major players.

After all this situation is not just all about us. There are other countries feeling the impact of the refugees.

Forrest Gardener:

Stuart Jeffrey:

22 Jul 2013 5:28:16pm

David,

Most Australians look at this problem and will congratulate the leaders of our nation that are prepared to stand up and do something real about stopping people risking their lives by making a boat transit.

Please recall that it was almost 3 years ago that SIEV-221 smashed itself to pieces on the Christmas Island rocks and killed 48 people.

It is inexcusable that our nations leaders have been unable to put a plan into action to end people risking their lives.

David of Cairns:

22 Jul 2013 5:29:49pm

My Mother used to say often in a situation, 'Now we just have to wait for the G class to catch up.'

Labor finally understands the border protection issue after six years of errors, argumentativeness, cover-ups and denial (they don't want a politicization of this). They have arrived at a position where they believe in the logic and the reasoning that led to the formation and the effective administering of the Pacific Solution.

But because they were ineffectual for too long they've ended up extreme and draconian by Coalition standards. There is NO way the Coalition would sign a blank cheque for more expenditure beyond the billions in waste already.

It is utterly incomprehensible that the government has acted in such complete disarray and presided over such an unequivocal disaster.

Labor are accountable for the deaths at sea, reviving the smuggler business model, the loss of billions of dollars over their incompetence and the division stirring within PNG now.

Labor have occupied every position on the chess board: Yes Turn back the boats - Rudd, Gillards Timor Solution, Gillards No Timor Solution, Yes Malaysia Solution, High Court No Malaysia Solution, No Manus, Yes Manus, Expert Panel on Asylum Seekers, No Nauru, Yes Nauru, Home Detention (in Green and Labor households), Revival of the Exclusion Zone, Revival of Off-Shore Processing, Turn back the boats can?t work Gillard & Rudd, Labor backflip on children in detention.

Talk about Government on the run. If the Coalition changed position no one would care because they are in opposition. But the government has responsibility to maintain a concise and consistent objective and to know that their actions have consequences.

Now they plate up a PNG solution? We are expected to have the confidence, trust and patience to allow the PNG trial. Labor hopes their cynical, desperate and self-serving fireman act will be appreciated after they burnt the building.

The PNG PM didn't even consult with his population. There has been no official multiculturalism by-in from PNG citizens. Not only has Rudd transferred Australia's responsibility to a third world country he has set the scene for internal divisions within PNG.

Labors Nauru and Manus effort is such a botch job they are unfit for habitation (they never believed in these being solutions). Yet boat detainees are on their way to Manus now - to unbuilt facilities. Labor 'hopes' the deterrent works before having any system in place.

The 'G' glass has caught up to a Coalition position of 6 years ago but they have gone in a totally new, radical, irresponsible and more costly direction. Australia needs to be put out of its misery with a fast election.

Tristan:

22 Jul 2013 9:28:26pm

Abbott, Scott Morrison and Julie Bishop didn't even have the guts to directly discuss their boats policy with the Indonesian government although Abbott claims he wants closer ties with Indonesia and a "Jakarta focus".

The Indonesian government has rubbished the Coalition's "turn back the boats" slogan.

Several heads of the Australian navy have spoken out against Abbott's boats policy asserting that it will endanger the lives of both asylum seekers and the Australian navy personnel.

Abbott's hasn't discussed in depth his asylum seeker policy. He's provided no costings. He wont debate Rudd publicly at the National Press Club in a roomful of journalists on any topic - not the economy, not carbon tax, not asylum seekers.

Both Abbott and Scott Morrison turned down an interview request by Jon Faine on ABC 774 Melbourne radio this morning.

Morrison asserted that he's said all that he needed to say about the Coalition's asylum seeker policy.

Funny, the Coalition didn't use drones last time. Haven't heard Abbott and Morrison discuss how that would work.

That's the Coalition for you. Always running away from scrutiny of their policies, running away from debates.

Abbott lied about having a direct hotline to the Australian navy.

Abbott lied about not creating new responsibilities for the Australian navy.

John:

23 Jul 2013 8:36:44am

All that is just not true, Tristan.

1) Abbot met Yudhuyono in his capacity as Opposition Leader. Diplomatic protocol requires that a non-Government person does not engage in discussions relative to international matters;2) The Indonesian Government has not rubbished the Abbot policy on turning back the boats. The Indonesian Foreign Minister has said that they are open to this policy;3) Several senior Naval and Military personnel have decried that claim and have asserted that it is perfectly possible and safe. There has been a Drum article on that point;4) Whether Abbot chooses to debate Rudd on the economy or the carbon tax or anything else has got nothing to do with this illegal trade;5) Refusing to do radio interviews has no bearing on the illegality of people smugglers and their customers;6) Morrison has made his position clear many times. He has said all he needs to say, and all you need to do is listen.

mack:

"There's something about the debate around asylum seekers that taps into the darkness in the souls of millions of Australians. "

I only read to your second paragraph before I gave up, David. Your assertion (above) is simply wrong.

When the boats stopped arriving after the implementation of the Pacific Solution - I'm not claiming a causal link: simply reporting the facts - Australia's humanitarian program resumed normal operations. The quota was filled from (mostly) offshore camps, and on the UNHCR principle of "most in need".

The issue of refugees disappeared from our national dialogue, until the boats returned when Rudd and Gillard terminated the Pacific Solution - again, not claiming a causal link; simply reporting the facts.

So it is not "refugees" per se that, as you claim, hardens our dark hearts. After all, we resettled the better part of 250,000 Vietnamese refugees from about 1975. Of that number, about one percent made it here in boats. The vast majority of Vietnamese resettled here were selected from camps in SE Asia. So, get the picture?

What some of us clearly don't like is the notion that people smugglers, and those with the means to pay to get into our Search and Rescue Zone, are securing all of the scarce places in our humanitarian program at the expense of those whom the UNHCR deems to be "most in need". You may be comfortable with that notion, and that people smugglers are the new administrators of the UN Refugee Convention.

Serenity:

22 Jul 2013 5:36:57pm

Great article. This is about the "lucifer effect" when people have their humanity removed by labels."slopeheads" "towelheads", etc, etc.People who come to Australia from Afghanistan or Iraq? Weren't we part of the "coalition of the willing" (to believe lies) that ruined their countries?Religious minorities from fundamentalist countries?These are all the people for whom we should have compassion.Telling us that they are are ALL economic refugees is another part of the Lucifer Effect. Removing the real cause of their flight from persecution.

bs :

22 Jul 2013 5:41:16pm

"merchants of death" is a ludicrous term.These criminals have a great deal of success.So give them some credit.They are meeting a demand. No adult person is forced onto these boats.They are paying for this service; conspiring with criminals to enter Australia.

Rod:

22 Jul 2013 5:42:33pm

David Hardaker, maybe you need to get out there and talk to some people on this issue before putting pen to paper. Most people are not against asylum seekers, they are against them jumping on boats and costing us billions in tax dollars to rescue them.Even the refugees who waited in queues overseas are against the people coming by boat, and they themselves had to wait years to get a visa.

EVAN:

Terry:

22 Jul 2013 5:49:02pm

Point 1. Differentiate between genuine refugees fearing for their lives and people who just want to jump the queue and just want to come here and live. The second group have no grounds whatsoever to be here and Australia decides who gets visas through appropriate channels that are not underpinned by corrupt and illegal practices. Point 2. Many countries are suffering because of excessive immigration that is changing the nature of communities - UK, Italy, Belgium, France. Point 3. I don't want Shaira law in Australia and I reject Islamic "refugee "folk bypassing several other Islamic countries to come here. Why? They don't want to live in Islamic countries OR they want to convert Australia to an Islamic country. We have had enough religious Christian nonsense in Australia, the evangelical right in the US and the murderous orange and green conflict in Ireland without importing Islamic barbarity into Australia (female genital mutilation, suicide bombings, preventing girls form going to school etc.)

philc:

22 Jul 2013 5:58:45pm

what does this person think he is doing, i was horrified to think that indirectly he would support the drownings of more people. As much as i detest K Rudd for being all talk and no action in the past at least he is trying to do something. The waste of money spent on detention centres could have been better used on housing for refugees and work places.If we were to take more refugees from the overseas centres then they would reduce the problem. We should ask , why as to the refugee situation. why do they risk their lives, why do they leave their home countries and how can we help them in their homelands. Let us get real, get a heart. If they need a place to go that is safe surely any place would be good.Perhaps the influx of people into PNG could help that country develop into a better place????

G:

Terry:

22 Jul 2013 6:12:50pm

Wow! I never knew I was such a hotbed of "undeclared racism" and that the "dark side" was of Australia was in charge.

I thought that I was being generous in agreeing that we would exceed the requirements of the Refugee Convention by allowing more than 20,000 people per annum to have permanent residence in this country. I thought that we could select these people from the most deserving in UN camps around the world. I had not actually thought much about race as I don't think such a man-made concept has much relevance. I had thought about cultural differences, but had thought we could absorb those numbers without too much social disruption. (Though I must admit that I had thought the arrivals might change a bit more rather than requiring that our culture do all the adapting).

Little did I realise that this was the dark side speaking. By wanting to help Congolese and Burmese, I was being racist! By not taking everyone who wanted a better life I was giving in to the dark side.

I am on a par with the death camps of Nazi Germany.

How could I have been so blind? By trying to have some sort of refugee program I have been promoting the Final Solution!

Thank you Mr Hardaker for opening my eyes. Without such logical and analytical thinking, where would we be? Perhaps sitting in the camps with all the other refugees, patiently waiting while people smugglers make a fortune ferrying self-selected immigrants to our shores.

genfie:

loise:

22 Jul 2013 7:18:28pm

Why do we use the term refugee - they are not, they are attempting to enter another country through the back door and use women and children as tools of manipulation. There are thousands of persecuted people waiting and waiting in horrendous camps, displaced - THEY are the true refugees. If it were us floating in on a boat hoping to settle ourselves in another country we'd be put on the first Jumbo Jet back home ..or thrown in jail.And for gods sake we can't afford to allow people from these nations to arrive, jump off the boat, have a bit of a chat with an official and then be freely granted the key to the front gate - we don't know who the hell they are for a start - they have diced all their papers. Will the Greens and the Bleeding Hearts take responsibility for what could occur if - or when, things get a bit out of control.Look at other countries where they've opened the floodgates and tell me if integration has worked. It hasn't.Tell me where these people will work, tell me how they will feed themselves, who will pay their rents. Some will do ok but most not. They will be living on government payments like so many of our own workers have been forced to do already. And is the money jar these handouts are from bottomless - no it is not.And another note: Most of these illegals are men and men from countries that persecute and violate the rights of women in the most degrading of manner.

Mary Krone:

22 Jul 2013 9:21:03pm

We call them refugees because they are. If I was an Hazara mum and had watched my husband, brothers and eldest boys killed by the Taliban I would do as many of them do, see that the younger boys are sent to seek refuge not just for a better life but to to remain alive, heartbreaking as it would be. There are no queues and there are no camps to await settlement from. If people don't have papers it is most often because the smugglers have taken them. They are given rigorous checks on arrival. It is not a floodgate. Look at the numbers seeking entries in other countries and unlike other countries are very high percentage of people coming here are found to be genuine refugees, despite what you prefer to allege. Refugees make excellent members of the community, they work hard, study and take jobs many would rather not do. They have far less crime rates (45% less) than the rest of the community. If you are worried about money take a good look at what it takes to endlessly incarcerate asylum seekers and to build offshore facilities.

Tristan:

genfie:

23 Jul 2013 8:54:42am

Because they are refugees. I'm so tired of people not understanding the basics of our local and international law.

These posts also show a shocking ignorance of the arduous process these people go through to gain refugee status - and 98% of them succeed btw - so the idea they're greeted with a smile and financial support is a distortion so unrelated to reality it borders on being propoganda.

Mary Krone:

22 Jul 2013 7:29:42pm

I don't like living in a country driven by a refrain of "I'm a bigger bastard than you about refugees". The whole frame of discussion is distorted by vile misrepresentations of asylum seekers and border security. Border security is a non issue for the legal seeking of asylum. Punishing smugglers by picking on souls looking for a better life is wrong headed. A concerted regional solution is not achieved by bribing an impoverished country. Do we care about the effect on PNG long term socially when it is already struggling? No. Do we care about the effect of the riots on Nauru and their society? No. We are very happy to export our problems to those less wealthy than us. Do we care about the lives of people fleeing dreadful circumstances and needing the chance of a new life? No. We are an island so why can't we work on a well considered attempt in Indonesia, Malaysia with their cooperation and without thinking about how we can dust up vulnerable people to punish smugglers vicariously? Do we question Bob Carr when he wildly speculates about economic refugees with no evidence in his favour and much to the contrary? No. Looks to me like we enjoy being hateful, sloppy thinkers with nary a care for the consequences and a total disregard for facts and the reality of asylum seeking globally.

Shane 2:

22 Jul 2013 7:31:33pm

***The propagandists are, unfortunately, borrowing from the playbook of the Nazis and those before (and after) them who have declared war on "the alien". Let us not disrespect or belittle the horrific tragedy that befell the Jews of Europe, but at the same time let us not ignore that those who committed those atrocities set forth a powerful template of how to manipulate mass opinion. ***

genfie:

Shane 2:

22 Jul 2013 7:50:01pm

***John Howard's line, "We will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come", worked powerfully on those who suspected filthy foreigners were trying to overtake good upstanding Australia.***

ru4real:

22 Jul 2013 9:16:59pm

Stop the boats. Turn back the boats. Stop the world. Turn back time. Tony Abbott and Kevin Rudd have made a mockery, not only of language, but also of human rights. People have a right to seek refuge, and some countries have signed the UNHCR charter guaranteeing proper treatment of asylum seekers, including Australia and PNG.

The LNP, Labor, Greens and Independents are all responsible for the contemptible position our nation is in, because they all failed to reach consensus on humane, bipartisan measures to deal with the growing, international issue of people seeking asylum.

Tony Abbott conveniently fails to mention that John Howard's government got us into wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, where significant numbers of asylum seekers originate from. Tony Abbott also refuses to publicly discuss his 'turn back the boats' catchcry, even though he knows that Indonesia and the Australian Navy do not support it. His is the typical behaviour of a 'passive-aggressive' person, but with worse consequences: his ongoing refusal to give up the untenable 'stop the boats' mantra has allowed many Australians to voice extreme variants of his 'policy', some of which translate into xenophobic, and sometimes anti-Muslim hatred and fear.

The LNP's prolonged stance, since John Howard's Tampa and 'children overboard' days, has meant that Labor leaders have been pushed further and further towards the brink in asylum seeker policy. Instead of party leaders acknowledging the exponential growth of millions of refugees worldwide, Australia's debate has focussed on the very small numbers of people arriving in Australian waters, by boat.

It is right to try to stop 'people smuggling' and prevent more people drowning. However Kevin Rudd has been manoeuvred by the LNP, Tony Abbott and the media hysteria into finding a very desperate 'solution' before the election. Malcolm Fraser's recent remarks about the shameful position of both LNP and Labor are justified.

Alexich:

22 Jul 2013 9:19:29pm

Again, people like David Hardaker are not productive workers and engineers, hence he hasn't got a clue what he means by racism if had to work with these refugees in a genuinely productive field. Least of all these bleeding hearts would be prepared to live with these refugees in closely packed Housing Commission flats here in Australia. Then he would perhaps learn the realities of race and social and human development which often go together.

But, where the people like David are often most blind is the fact that Australian people, and that includes white people too, have definite preferences with what sort of people they want to share their future and engage with in productive activities. That's their human right, their democratic right which should seem obvious to all common sense, but which the ranting intellectual failures posing as humanitarians being so unbalanced, are blind to see. You can call that racism or any other label you choose to invent, but that is an unalienable human fact that white Australian nationals have their preferences for people similar in appearance and in their mental characteristics. No political hack, or an academic chatterbox can point to the cause of these preferences, but they are vital if the common man in Australia is allowed to have these preferences at all. And this is their basic human right regardless of economic or humanitarian considerations.

Harquebus:

Doug Richards:

22 Jul 2013 9:24:49pm

Okay, can we find common terminology for those people who arrive on boats without prior permission? They are not really 'asylum seekers', as after danger ends those who seek asylum go home. They are simply 'settlement seekers', that is, those who seek to be settled in Australia contrary to Australia's immigration policies and programs. They come from counties with major problems, yes, but the unspoken fear is that they will import those problems into Australia. Why cannot this fear be spoken of?

genfie:

23 Jul 2013 8:49:23am

They are asylum seekers and refugees. By definition. That is all. If you don't like it, then lobby for the definitions to be changed. But that is their status under international law. Endless emotive rubbish about how you just don't like them doesn't change that.

Too much nonsense:

22 Jul 2013 10:13:04pm

Green Day and JoeBloggsPNG is NOT offering residency to the Asylum Seekers It is not a destination. Australia is interring them in a Camp on a PNG Island. The prospect of a prison-like environment in tents in the tropics with poor facilities (to take these extra people at Manus Island which is currently FULL with the 500 people it was built to take, they'll have long-drop dunnies and no extra showers, no extra water unless it's flown in)

Those who talk of 'boat people' taking the places of 'camp people' never talk of the 'plane arrivals (the majority of asylum seeker) taking the places of those waiting in camps....why is that?

The issue is that Australia is not taking responsibility and processing asylum seekers properly and according to UN obligations.

Sticking people in internment camps is not processing them as asylum seekers. Sending them to other countries is avoiding our obligation to process them.

BluMint:

23 Jul 2013 12:43:28am

We can debate all week on this with no danger of waking to find strangers camping on our front lawn because they like our lawn best. We will have no difficulty telling them to leave because it is illegal to trespass. Why can't we all get behind the Government so our borders are no longer trespassed? It is a patriotic thing to do.

Jean:

23 Jul 2013 8:57:45am

When I first arrived in this country over 50 years ago after spending time in Eastern Europe and Asia, I forecast that Australia's biggest problem would be to control the masses of people that wished to come here for a better life. On my travels all those years ago I could have had a dozen slaves for life, as long as I took them with me to Australia.

To-day we are not seeing the end of this problem with Rudd's PNG threat and deterrent. In time it won't be the Tampa, it will be SS Exodus. There will be boats secretly arriving on the mainland with people rather than drugs being picked up by sympathisers. There might even be aircraft landing at remote airstrips. There will be more and more "students" and "tourists" breaking their visa restrictions.

It will be a perennial problem if world population and political chaos in third world countries escalates. Australia has to reach some sort of balance between what is acceptable immigration of desired citizens and refugees and what is sustainable for imbedded standards of living. And Labor will have to show a bit more honesty than using "drownings at sea" as tragic as they are, to justify a strong border protection policy.

But above all we (and the UN) must do everything we can to assist the third world to attain standards of living similar to our own so that they want to remain in their homeland and improve it, rather than leave it.

Aussie Sutra:

23 Jul 2013 9:26:39am

This is a message for the Australian Labor Party. Many ordinary Australians are completely supporting this move to prevent the terrifyingly escalating numbers of asylum seekers who are heading to Australia a fast-tracked form of economic resettlement. If you can get rid of the Carbon Tax and NOT have an ETS, but rather shift to regulations as a means of reducing greenhouse gases and then raise money, through an alternative tax allocation if possible, for sustainable fuel development, then you are on track to win back the support of people like me, who would have, as recently as a week ago, thought it impossible to see a future in which we would ever vote Labor again.

You are on the right track and the many people who are making a literal killing by suckling on the government teat via the asylum seeker rort are having a massive tantrum right now and trying to make you believe they represent the average voting Aussie. They do not. They are representing their own personal best interests and don't care one iota about our nation.

Ron Brown:

23 Jul 2013 11:37:40am

They ARE illegal immigrants! Why? simply because if they are refugees seeking assylum, then why bypass several ports of call in other countries on such a long journey? They do not apply for assylum through the recognised & legal avenues. Instead, they sneak in hoping to make it to our shores. They often call for assistance as soon as they are out of indonesia and do the indonesians rush out to assist? No! Why do the smugglers all have the phone number to request assistance from us?Why would genuine people seeking refuge destroy paperwork and all forms of ID? All you bleeding hearts and do-gooders can help them by having one or two in your own homes for a 12 month period if you want. What about their behaviour in the detention centres. If they behave like that in there when they dont get what they want, then how will they react when in the community? We have many Australians homeless etc. Yet these "boat people" can get houses, furniture, medical assistance immediately at NO COST. we have to wait sometimes for years. Some are genuine yes, but many more are not. Wake up to yourselves.

Reinhard:

23 Jul 2013 12:00:19pm

"The technique of turning people into objects is propaganda 101. "Mr Hardaker along with your blatant invocation of 'Godwin's Law' you are totally mistaken. The rhetoric we have seen from the govt refers to refugees and the people smugglers, and is therefore directed at those specific people, not to objects.On the other hand the rhetoric of the coalition has been all about objects, not people, they are the ones using terms like "illegal boats" and mantras like "we will stop the boats" and "we will turn back boats" with little or no mention of the people actually on those boats.If you have a problem with the use of propaganda I suggest you take it up with the coalition, not the govt.